5 Reasons Most Conservatives Are Terrible At Politics

Posted on by

image of a crowd of angry conservativesThis election is unlike ones I’ve experienced in my lifetime and some pundits claim it is the most off-the-wall campaign they’ve seen. All I know is that each election helps show how terrible conservatives are at politics.

I have a conservative friend who I’ve known since High School. He is a smart guy and successful in his area of employment but he’s terrible at politics. Like most conservatives he hates Hillary Clinton with a passion and like most conservatives he repeats every bad argument he’s read or heard to confirm his hate.

For example, Wikileaks has been slowly releasing Clinton campaign emails that someone stole from John Podesta, her campaign manager. My friend has been gleefully posting the items on Facebook as *PROOF* that Hillary is the “most corrupt” person running for president EVER!!!!!!

I’ve read these emails and so far, none of them shows anything other than what a normal campaign talks about in private. Remember these emails were suppose to be private – these were separate, as they should be, from Hillary’s past work as Secretary of State. As I posted before, the right wing has made hay of these emails based on nothing – just a claim it looks bad so it must be criminal.

My conservative friend, who we will call “Friend1”, posted about a leaked email concerning a $12 million donation, by the King of Morocco, to the Clinton Foundation with a promise of Hillary showing up at a meeting. The campaign didn’t want her to do it because it would look bad and Friend1 gleefully said this meant the meeting was “pay for play” or a “quid pro quo” where she would do something in exchange for the “donation” so she was a crook.

Reality tells a different story. It’s clear from the public record that Clinton never attended the meeting, there is no proof that Morocco got anything other than a promise for Hillary to show up at the meeting for the money, there is also a question if the whole $12 million was even donated, and the meeting was planned and scheduled to take place when Clinton had already left the State Department (she resigned in 2013) and before she announced she was running for President (that’s why the campaign was upset). It is also clear that Hillary doesn’t get any compensation from her work on behalf of the Clinton Foundation.

So with the facts out of the way, let’s look at the conversation I had on Facebook with Friend1:

Me: What was the conflict? For there to be quid pro quo someone has to get something for their payment. What did Morocco get? Let me help when did this take place? When did Clinton leave the State Department?

Friend1: Okay, I am no longer obliged to feel bad about pointing out how much of an idiot you are being on this topic. Anybody reading this, needs to look at the whole string.

Take a moment and Google search “Standard of Recusal”. As a prosecutor, a judge, or a person in a position regulatory decision making jurisdiction, one has to “avoid the appearance of impropriety”.

Not only avoid “actual impropriety”, but just as important, the “appearance” of impropriety”.

I realize standards are not a part of the Democrat “gig”, but just take a moment to LEARN about “standards of recusal”.

Good day.

Me: Again what did Morocco get in return and did you know she wasn’t Secretary of State at the time of the meeting that she didn’t attend and there is no proof the foundation got any money. If I’m an idiot because I won’t fall for your bullsh*t than so be it. Just answer the GD questions and Offer some proof or STFU about this.

Friend1: The money was paid, that isn’t a question at all. When your own staffers are “freaking out about it”, the there, is there, it’s only a matter of time. I realize ethical standards is something your camp has no regard, but the rest of the world does, so I won’t STFU, thank you.

I will give you credit, there seems to be no limit to your loyalty. If I were a politician you would be the constituency I would want.

Me: I’m just glad you did prove you are full of crap so you got that going for you like most conservatives who refuse to actually check out information before repeating it

Friend1: You clearly don’t understand ethical standards and standard of recusal. If you did, you wouldn’t so ignorantly say, “what the problem”?

Me: You don’t understand standard of recusal because this isn’t about a court of law, Clinton wasn’t in office at the time of the meeting and never attended the meeting, and there is no proof the money was paid, and you can’t point out anything that Morocco got in return. What conservative media welfare person did you copy your argument from or did “standard of recusal” just sound ‘cool’ to say?

Friend1: It is generally frowned upon for presidential candidates to be pumping foreign leaders for money, and her staff recognized it.

Bob Woodward, (The bam who nailed Nixon) had this to say about it: “It’s corrupt,”, “It’s a scandal.” “The mixing of speech fees, the Clinton Foundation and actions by the State Department which she ran are all intertwined,” he said. “And it’s corrupt. You can’t just say it’s unsavory.”

Me: Clinton wasn’t SS and had not announced her run at the time of the meeting she didn’t attend so it looks likes Woodward is full of crap too

Friend1: Yeah, it’s always everybody else that is wrong.

But hey, if I were a politician, you would be the constituency I would want. 100% blind, no limit, loyalty. Most people have limits, but you are something special in the world of political advocacy/ideology.

But I enjoy sparring with you. Not many enjoy the spirited debate we often find ourselves. You may be wrong, but you are a good man.

As you can read, Friend1 refused to accept the facts of the Morocco meeting and in fact he called me names and tried to use a legal term outside of how it is normally used.

Here are five reasons conservatives are bad at politics

1. Conservatives use poor sources. Repeating what you hear on a right wing TV or radio show shouldn’t be used as proof of anything without vetting it. If one of those shows mentions a study or poll check out the actual source of the study or poll to see if it followed accepted practices. If not don’t pass it off as proof. Just because you agree with it doesn’t mean it’s true.

2. Conservatives create a bizzaro world and then complain about it. Like the campaign emails, they think the world works one way and complain about it. Private campaign emails talking smack about some demographic is the norm rather than the exception. Google the “southern strategy”.

3. Conservatives don’t read the articles before sharing a post on social media. They also don’t check out the basic information the post is talking about to see if it is even true or possible. That’s why I asked Friend1 the questions I did to see if he knew the basics of the story and he didn’t.

4. When faced with losing Conservatives deny deny deny. Friend1 refused to backtrack on his argument even after the facts were presented to him. Remember facts aren’t biased.

5. When in doubt conservatives call people names. That doesn’t win any arguments.

I know that I can’t stop conservatives from having terrible ideas but I hope they can start to think about them better so they can productively contribute to a policy debate where one idea is accepted to be correct and one is not. My Friend1 might be a lost cause


Also published on Medium.


Comments for this post are closed. If you wish to send a note to the editor, visit our contact form