My Response to a Republican Who Attempted to Answer My 10 Questions

GohmertAs many people who follow me might know, I write a series every few weeks called 10 Questions Every Liberal Should Ask Every Republican.  It’s a pretty basic premise.  In each edition I write 10 different questions that I hope liberals take with them to present to Republicans.  The questions are usually pretty basic and most tend to revolve around current events.

An added benefit to this series is often I’ll get a Republican trying to answer these questions, which usually presents me with an opportunity to write a follow-up article such as this to showcase a little of what I deal with on a daily basis.  Plus I think it’s a good guide for those reading the follow-up article to see what nonsense Republicans might be spewing in response to each question.

Plus the article usually inspires a good debate amongst those who read it.

Well, let’s get to it. Here are the questions, along with a random reader’s responses who I will assume is a Republican, and my follow-up responses in bold. Their answers have not been edited at all.

1) How is it President Obama’s fault that all U.S. troops are out of Iraq, allowing ISIS to take control in many cities within the nation, when the SOFA agreement requiring that all American military forces had to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011 was signed by George W. Bush?

Their answer: I dont blame Obama for it, nor do I see the blame being sent his way by most republicans. But then again he has more than enough overseas mishaps than just the ISIS issue.

They don’t see the blame being sent his way by most Republicans?  I guess they don’t watch Fox News, listen to Rush Limbaugh or watch many clips from congressional Republicans talking about Iraq.  And I love the “overseas mishaps” comment.  We’ve started no wars, got Syria to get rid of their chemical weapons without firing a single shot, killed Osama bin Ladin and haven’t started a single war – I’d like to know what “mishaps” to which they’re referring.  

2) If guns make us safer, then why was one of the first things many law enforcement officials did in the 1800′s to curb violence in their towns (and most were successful) was to ban the carrying of firearms inside city limits?

Their answer: Why is it then that Switzerland has the most lax gun-control laws in the western world, with the least amount of gun violence. Better yet why are the three most stringent gun-control law city’s (Chicago, Los Angelos and NYC) always ranked in the top 5 cities for gun violence while more lax cities do not even break the top 10. Because we all know criminals abide the law.

Switzerland also mandates all males serve in the military.  Should we do that as well? And when looking at gun violence, cities are a poor way to look at it.  As you can tell by the three cities they listed, they’re going by numbers instead of per capita.  Of course the larger the city the more likelihood of gun violence.  To get a better picture of gun violence it’s better to look at whole states.  

In order, the states leading the country in gun homicides per 100,000 people are:

  1. Louisiana 
  2. Mississippi
  3. Alaska
  4. Wyoming 
  5. Oklahoma
  6. Montana
  7. Arkansas
  8. Alabama
  9. New Mexico
  10. South Carolina 

Every single one is a very pro-gun, strongly Republican state except for New Mexico.  

3) If a church wants to marry a gay couple, but state law prohibits gay marriage, how is that not a violation of their “religious freedoms”?

Their answer: This issue is difficult to address due to the multitude of religions and there beliefs. However I believe the localized government should be the determining factor as they are closer to their constituents then the federal government.

So, their solution is to let localized government determine Constitutional rights.  Meaning that if you happen to be a liberal living in a very conservative area of the United States, either move or adapt to the views they want to force on you.  This is the same kind of argument segregationists used in the 50’s and 60’s.

4) If Darrell Issa is so sure that there’s rampant corruption at the IRS, then why couldn’t he recently cite one specific piece of “smoking gun” evidence he’s found during his investigation?

Their answer: Why is it that the IRS has suddenly lost all e-mails from one of its most important individuals just before those e-mails are to be investigated. Furthermore why is it that they refuse to allow third-party expert data recovery specialists to fix this issue.

First, the IRS didn’t “suddenly lose” all of Lerner’s emails.  The hard drive crashed three years ago.  Also, notice how this person never actually answered the question.  

5) Unplanned pregnancies are the leading cause of abortions. Most unplanned pregnancies are the result of a lack of contraceptives being used during sexual activity. How does it make any sense to oppose access to contraceptives, while claiming to be anti-abortion?

Their answer: The issue behind the Hobby Lobby case was not 16 forms of contraception, where the mass majority are acceptable of, but the 4 forms of emergency “morning after pills” are used. In fact Hobby Lobby already supplied those 16 forms of preventative before Obamacare came into being.

So their “logic” is that a company should determine what method of contraceptives a woman is allowed to use?  

6) The United States has around 300-330 million guns (and growing) circulating within our neighborhoods, while gun violence continues to claim around 9,000 lives every year. How many guns will it take to decrease gun violence in America?

Their answer: See answer 2. And please stop repeating yourself to try and make it seem you are more informed then you are.

Again, doesn’t answer the question and their entire premise for their answer to #2 was false, therefore irrelevant.  

7) How many decades would you say it will take for trickle-down economics to finally start working? It’s been over 30 years now and all that’s happened is the rich have gotten richer, while the middle class falls further and further behind.

Their answer: The inverse is no better, as studies have shown. And if you to cut back on your spending, do you drop your cable and cell phone, or do fire the cleaning lady and gardener? People fire the gardener before they effect their own way of life. Which in turn creates more unemployed. Now to expand that large corporations.

Almost nothing they said here makes any sense in relation to my question.  And if you want to say the “inverse” was our economy prior to trickle-down economics (higher taxes, stronger unions) our economy was much stronger.  Eisenhower was a Republican and he managed to balance the budget, build our Interstate Highway system and preside over a strong economy despite tax rates being much higher than they are now.  

8) Do you really not think there’s a connection between the right-wing denial of climate change and the fact that the Republican party is heavily backed by big oil?

Their answer: The sample size is far to small to be of any statistical significance. 100 years in over 1 billion is not even remotely significant. If I told you that 1 in a million people believe Obama is the worst (Again example) you would rally that that is a small sample of the population. Same issue here.

97% of the scientists who devote their lives to studying climate science say that humans are accelerating climate change.  And it’s not 100 years out of 1 billion.  It’s the last 50-60 years over the last 150 where we’ve seen a direct relation to the human burning of fossil fuels and changes to our climate.

Also, a subjective opinion about Obama isn’t the same as scientific fact.  

Oh, and they never really answered this question either, pertaining to Republicans being backed by big oil and their opposition to climate change science.  

9) Explain to me how someone can enjoy their own personal “religious freedom” when they’re having to abide by laws and policies based on somebody else’s?

Their answer: This question is quite vague as my teacher told me, please be more specific if you wish for an intelligent answer.

The question isn’t vague at all, they just can’t answer it.  Therefore they respond with a question (usually the first sign they can’t answer a question without contradicting their beliefs) and a sarcastic remark to try to comfort themselves since they know they can’t answer the question.  

10) If John Boehner thinks President Obama should be sued for using his executive power to get something done on immigration, then what should happen to him considering he won’t let the House vote on a bipartisan immigration bill the Senate passed last year that the vast majority of Americans support?

Their answer: The President has certain powers afforded the office as decreed by the Constitution, but Executive decision has expanded it. However Executive decision is not suppose to supersede congressional debate and action. This president’s executive decisions are being issued in replace of laws already in existence. Something that inherently violates the seperation of powers clause.

Again, they never actually answer the question.  They just responded with a Fox News talking point while completely ignoring the fact that the Senate passed a bipartisan immigration bill last year that John Boehner refuses to let the House vote on.  

Well, there you have it folks.  Insight into the mind of a Republican and a little taste of what I deal with nearly every single day.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments