The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: msquared on January 22, 2021, 10:41:39 PM

Title: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: msquared on January 22, 2021, 10:41:39 PM
Protestors and rioters are now claiming that Trump made them do it.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/lawyers-for-accused-capitol-rioters-outline-a-defense-the-president-made-them-do-it-014900543.html

These rugged individuals were led like sheep. It is not their fault. They can not be blamed. They are victims of a President who would pardon a bunch of financial criminals (especially bribery and other fraud scams) but would not pardon them.

msquared
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: TheDeamon on January 23, 2021, 01:53:06 AM
Not all Trump supporters were Republicans prior to Trump becoming the president. They're unlikely to remain Republican without Trump present. Their investment in being Republican is about the Trump association and not anything to do with traditional Republicanism.  Not that the clowns in DC have concerned themselves with traditional Republicanism since a brief period in the 90's
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: Grant on January 23, 2021, 08:01:32 AM
Protestors and rioters are now claiming that Trump made them do it.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/lawyers-for-accused-capitol-rioters-outline-a-defense-the-president-made-them-do-it-014900543.html

These rugged individuals were led like sheep. It is not their fault. They can not be blamed. They are victims of a President who would pardon a bunch of financial criminals (especially bribery and other fraud scams) but would not pardon them.

msquared

We'll see how well that defense works in a courtroom. 

But, they kinda do have a point.   They WERE led around like a bunch of sheep.  They let themselves be led.  Baaaaaaaaaaa. 
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DonaldD on January 24, 2021, 08:23:06 AM
Ai, caramba: Texas GOP now an official offshoot of QAnon (https://twitter.com/TexasGOP/status/1353112047970443266)

Quote
Follow Us on GAB!

@TexasGOP

WE ARE THE STORM

The Texas GOP - proudly affiliating with domestic terrorists and wing nuts since 2020.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: Grant on January 24, 2021, 09:07:14 AM
The Texas GOP - proudly affiliating with domestic terrorists and wing nuts since 2020.

Allen West was too crazy for Florida so he's trying to make it in Texas. 
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DonaldD on January 25, 2021, 09:58:14 AM
That moment when a septuagenarian first realizes that actions have consequences: Dominion sues Giuliani for $1.3 billion over 'Big Lie' about election fraud (https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/25/politics/dominion-lawsuit-giuliani/index.html)

Quote
(CNN) - Dominion Voting Systems has sued former President Donald Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani for defamation after he pushed the "Big Lie" about election fraud on his podcast and TV appearances.

Dominion is seeking more than $1.3 billion in damages.

"Just as Giuliani and his allies intended, the Big Lie went viral on social media as people tweeted, retweeted, and raged that Dominion had stolen their votes. While some lies -- little lies -- flare up on social media and die with the next news cycle, the Big Lie was different," lawyers for Dominion wrote in the lawsuit, filed in DC District Court on Monday morning. "The harm to Dominion's business and reputation is unprecedented and irreparable because of how fervently millions of people believe it."
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: Grant on January 25, 2021, 10:30:12 AM
That moment when a septuagenarian first realizes that actions have consequences:

Oh, he first realized it on the morning of the 20th when he didn't get a get-out-of-jail free pardon from his master.   
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: TheDeamon on January 25, 2021, 02:23:11 PM
Presidential Pardon wouldn't protect against civil liability, just criminal. And only at the federal level, states could still pursue it if they have a relevant jurisdiction.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DonaldD on January 26, 2021, 11:39:29 AM
The Oregon Republican Party, joining Arizona, has gone completely, batch!t crazy (https://twitter.com/Oregon_GOP/status/1351656484392759297)

Quote
Whereas history tells us that after George Washington appointed Major General Benedict Arnold to command West Point, Arnold conspired to surrender the fort to the British.

...

Whereas the ten Republican House members, by voting to impeach President Trump, repeated history by conspiring to surrender our nation to Leftist forces seeking to establish a dictatorship void of all cherished freedoms and liberties.

...

Whereas there is growing evidence that the violence at the Capitol was a 'false flag' operation designed to discredit President Trump, his supporters, and all conservative Republicans; this provided the sham motivation to impeach President Trump in order to advance the Democrat goal of seizing total power, in a frightening parallel to the February 1933 burning of the German Reichstag.

Are there still any sane people willing and able to take back the Republican party from the nut bars currently driving the clown car off the cliff? (I know, I know, but reality actually calls for mixing 3 different metaphors in the same sentence)
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: TheDrake on January 26, 2021, 12:07:37 PM
The Oregon Republican Party, joining Arizona, has gone completely, batch!t crazy (https://twitter.com/Oregon_GOP/status/1351656484392759297)

Quote
Whereas history tells us that after George Washington appointed Major General Benedict Arnold to command West Point, Arnold conspired to surrender the fort to the British.

...

Whereas the ten Republican House members, by voting to impeach President Trump, repeated history by conspiring to surrender our nation to Leftist forces seeking to establish a dictatorship void of all cherished freedoms and liberties.

...

Whereas there is growing evidence that the violence at the Capitol was a 'false flag' operation designed to discredit President Trump, his supporters, and all conservative Republicans; this provided the sham motivation to impeach President Trump in order to advance the Democrat goal of seizing total power, in a frightening parallel to the February 1933 burning of the German Reichstag.

Are there still any sane people willing and able to take back the Republican party from the nut bars currently driving the clown car off the cliff? (I know, I know, but reality actually calls for mixing 3 different metaphors in the same sentence)

Growing evidence? That's so nuts they are attracting squirrels.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: Grant on January 26, 2021, 12:45:29 PM
Growing evidence? That's so nuts they are attracting squirrels.

Yes
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DonaldD on January 28, 2021, 11:19:35 AM
Is the Republican party now broken beyond repair?

The QAnon wing of the party is clearly now ascendent.  'Regular' GOP members either support, or worse, believe the conspiracy, or are too cowed to object.

The members are even so afraid of being primaried that they refuse to even investigate the insurrection that might have led to some of their executions.

There is literally a GOP congressperson who has publicly supported and agreed with calls for the murder of other members of Congress and a former president... and yet I am unaware of any significant number of GOP members of Congress that are willing to describe those actions as unacceptable, never mind calling for that member's censure.

The question is whether they really believe there is enough independent support for this level of wackadoodle and evil in the country to avoid them being relegated to permanent opposition status.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: Grant on January 28, 2021, 11:39:29 AM
Is the Republican party now broken beyond repair?

The QAnon wing of the party is clearly now ascendent.  'Regular' GOP members either support, or worse, believe the conspiracy, or are too cowed to object.

The members are even so afraid of being primaried that they refuse to even investigate the insurrection that might have led to some of their executions.

Not sure if the QAnon wing is really ascendant or not.  Approval ratings for Cruz and Hawley actually went down after 1-6 among Republicans. The problem is that establishment Republican favorability hasn't really gone up either in the same amount of time.   

They're right to fear being primaried.  So many moderate Republican voters simply walked away from the party over the last 4 years out of frustration and spite, that they no longer have a voice in the proceedings.  That's their own fault.  They want a different kind of Party but they refuse to stay and fight for the ship.  So the Trumpists, not necessarily ascendant, are simply left to ride the sinking ship to the bottom. 
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: msquared on January 28, 2021, 11:48:44 AM
This is the only reason I have not changed my official part registration with the voters office.  Is to try and help moderate candidates, if there are any, on future primaries.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: yossarian22c on January 28, 2021, 11:59:40 AM
The question is if Democrats can nationalize these nut jobs and run against them in every district. Republicans try, I think with some degree of success, to run all of their races against Pelosi and AOC. The question is can Democrats tie Cruz, Howley, and QAnon supporters to all the Republicans from swing districts. If they can succeed in "nationalizing" the fringes in the same way Republicans try to brand all Democrats by the most liberal members then there is a real price to pay for keeping them around without speaking out against them. Otherwise, the cancer will continue eating the party from the inside because its less risky and is at least short term beneficial for rational members to look the other way at the crazy.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: msquared on January 28, 2021, 12:04:26 PM
Of course GOP leaders are in the quandary that if they piss off the Tumpist, Trump goes out and forms his own party and takes 1/3 (or more) of the base with him for an election cycle or two. If they cave to him, he, and his wing job followers, get to set the agenda because they can always threaten to leave.  I don't think Trump would ever actually leave, because he and his party he would form would have zero chance in a general election against a normal GOP candidate and a Dem candidate, and Trump hates to loose.  Of course he would start every single election cycle stating that if his person looses, there was fraud involved.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DonaldD on January 28, 2021, 12:13:49 PM
Trump is unhealthy, overweight, has no interest in having healthy habits or taking care of himself, and is not getting any younger.

The likelihood of him being in any shape to campaign and be seen to be a force will decrease every year; sure, it's all probabilities at this point, but if I were a purely selfish, rational Republican, that math would factor heavily into my calculations of his benefit to me. 
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: Grant on January 28, 2021, 12:22:26 PM
Of course GOP leaders are in the quandary that if they piss off the Tumpist, Trump goes out and forms his own party and takes 1/3 (or more) of the base with him for an election cycle or two. If they cave to him, he, and his wing job followers, get to set the agenda because they can always threaten to leave.  I don't think Trump would ever actually leave, because he and his party he would form would have zero chance in a general election against a normal GOP candidate and a Dem candidate, and Trump hates to loose.  Of course he would start every single election cycle stating that if his person looses, there was fraud involved.

I think that if they left to form their "Patriot Party", that at most they would only take 1/6 to 1/10 of Republican voters with them.  I think most Trumpers still realize that splitting the party is only going to be a recipe for failure and irrelevance.  It's simply a bluff.  The real question is whether an establishment Republican party can still win elections.  In places where the party is strong, it shouldn't be a problem.  But in tight races it would be the end unless an establishment Republican party can bring back votes from the center.  Some of that depends on the direction the Democratic party is moving.  Running on defunding the police and socialism is still a recipe for failure at the national level. 
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: msquared on January 28, 2021, 12:26:36 PM
Donald

Trump is the healthiest person alive and will live forever.  If he dies it will obviously be by nefarious means (Obama and AOC had him killed) or he faked his death to go deep undercover in his battle against the liberal child molesters. Anything else is heresy.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: Grant on January 28, 2021, 12:34:41 PM
or he faked his death to go deep undercover in his battle against the liberal child molesters.

I saw Trump drinking a piña colada outside of Trader Vic's.  His hair was perfect. 
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DonaldD on January 28, 2021, 12:36:15 PM
Thankyou... thankyouverymuch
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: Lloyd Perna on January 28, 2021, 12:36:55 PM
There is literally a GOP congressperson who has publicly supported and agreed with calls for the murder of other members of Congress and a former president.

I call bull*censored* on this claim.  Please name the congressperson and provide the quote you are talking about.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DonaldD on January 28, 2021, 12:43:09 PM
Google is your friend.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: msquared on January 28, 2021, 12:49:35 PM
Donald

To be fair, if Wm or Serati had made a claim like that we would have expected them to provide a link to back it up.  Of course Wm usually would not do that, but we all know you are better at that then he is.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: yossarian22c on January 28, 2021, 12:50:10 PM
There is literally a GOP congressperson who has publicly supported and agreed with calls for the murder of other members of Congress and a former president.

I call bull*censored* on this claim.  Please name the congressperson and provide the quote you are talking about.

Quote
In one post, from January 2019, Greene liked a comment that said "a bullet to the head would be quicker" to remove House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In other posts, Greene liked comments about executing FBI agents who, in her eyes, were part of the "deep state" working against Trump.
...
Elsewhere on her Facebook page, Greene liked comments that advocated to "arrest" Obama and former Secretary of State John Kerry and one comment that said, "HANG that bitch," referring to either Obama or Kerry or possibly both of them. She also liked a comment that urged for "civil war 2.0" to begin.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DonaldD on January 28, 2021, 01:09:56 PM
Donald

To be fair, if Wm or Serati had made a claim like that we would have expected them to provide a link to back it up.  Of course Wm usually would not do that, but we all know you are better at that then he is.

I would have more sympathy if Greene's statements weren't being reported on as headline news on all major media (yes, even on Fox) not to mention that all major media are also reporting on Congressman (D) Gomez' statement that he will introduce a resolution to expel her from Congress (yes, also on Fox).

Now, if Lloyd hadn't immediately implied that I was lying, I might have been more responsive to a request for more information.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: msquared on January 28, 2021, 01:10:34 PM
yes but is it being reported on OANN and NewsMax? I mean those are the only true honest news sites out there. Truly the only unbiased bastions of truth left in the world. Shinning lights of honesty and all that is Trump in the barren waste land that is journalism.

Amen.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: TheDrake on January 28, 2021, 01:14:33 PM
Anybody taking odds on Lloyd admitting that the Greene said that and that it wasn't bull*censored* after all? Or will the story be that Antifa hacked her twitter account?
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DonaldD on January 28, 2021, 01:17:46 PM
Anybody taking odds on Lloyd admitting that the Greene said that and that it wasn't bull*censored* after all? Or will the story be that Antifa hacked her twitter account?
Well, hacked and also silenced every attempt for her to correct the record until this week... (and when I say "correct" that's reeeeaaaaally kinda/sorta)
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: Lloyd Perna on January 28, 2021, 01:46:08 PM
Anybody taking odds on Lloyd admitting that the Greene said that and that it wasn't bull*censored* after all? Or will the story be that Antifa hacked her twitter account?


Are you guys really suggesting that liking a comment on Facebook is the equivalent of saying the same thing?
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DonaldD on January 28, 2021, 01:47:39 PM
The problem the GOP has with this, the on-going self inflicted wound, is that Greene is currently, temporarily, more effectively powerful than any other GOP member of Congress, and the rest of them are too terrified to act on what should be a slam dunk decision.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: yossarian22c on January 28, 2021, 01:47:50 PM
Anybody taking odds on Lloyd admitting that the Greene said that and that it wasn't bull*censored* after all? Or will the story be that Antifa hacked her twitter account?


Are you guys really suggesting that liking a comment on Facebook is the equivalent of saying the same thing?

The claim was "publicly supported and agreed with." Isn't that what a like means?
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: msquared on January 28, 2021, 01:48:45 PM
Here is what Donald said.

"There is literally a GOP congressperson who has publicly supported and agreed with calls for the murder of other members of Congress and a former president... and yet I am unaware of any significant number of GOP members of Congress that are willing to describe those actions as unacceptable, never mind calling for that member's censure."

He said she supported and agreed with those calls.  Liking Facebooks posts that say those thing sure seems like she supports and agrees with the statements.  How else would you read it?
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DonaldD on January 28, 2021, 01:53:33 PM
Are you guys really suggesting that liking a comment on Facebook is the equivalent of saying the same thing?

I'm glad you wrote "equivalent" and not "the same".  Yes, likes are equivalent to publicly saying "I agree with you".  That is their purpose.  Reposting something, like she also did, is more akin to verbally repeating what was stated.

Just to be clear, though - do you no-longer disagree with the statement you labelled as "bull*censored*" earlier?
Quote
There is literally a GOP congressperson who has publicly supported and agreed with calls for the murder of other members of Congress and a former president.

Notice the specific wording, BTW.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: Lloyd Perna on January 28, 2021, 01:54:06 PM
Here is what Donald said.

"There is literally a GOP congressperson who has publicly supported and agreed with calls for the murder of other members of Congress and a former president... and yet I am unaware of any significant number of GOP members of Congress that are willing to describe those actions as unacceptable, never mind calling for that member's censure."

He said she supported and agreed with those calls.  Liking Facebooks posts that say those thing sure seems like she supports and agrees with the statements.  How else would you read it?

Sometimes it means that.  I usually like things that I find funny, or that I want my friends to see.  But if this is now the bar for cancellation I think there a large number of politicians, Democrats included that are in for some trouble.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: msquared on January 28, 2021, 01:57:05 PM
Oh sometimes. How about most of the time. And if she does not add any other commentary, you know to maybe clarify that there are parts she might agree with and parts she might not, so we have to take it on face value, right?
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: Lloyd Perna on January 28, 2021, 01:58:21 PM
Oh sometimes. How about most of the time. And if she does not add any other commentary, you know to maybe clarify that there are parts she might agree with and parts she might not, so we have to take it on face value, right?

Or you could take her word for it when she clarifies it.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: msquared on January 28, 2021, 01:59:58 PM
But has she?  Months later?

But to the point, Donald was not wrong and you called bull****.    His statement was correct.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DonaldD on January 28, 2021, 02:03:11 PM
Sometimes it means that.  I usually like things that I find funny, or that I want my friends to see.  But if this is now the bar for cancellation I think there a large number of politicians, Democrats included that are in for some trouble.
If there are other members of Congress who 'liked' calls for murder, or reposted same, without clarifying their intent, then I would absolutely want them, regardless of political stripe, to be raked over the coals for those statements - and at the very least, they should apologize for their irresponsibility, and take ownership of the mistakes.

Taylor Greene seems to know this, which is why she suggested that somebody else was using her Facebook account to post, that it wasn't her.  But no attempt was made to apologize for or to condemn those statements, as far as I have seen. What she dd say is something like "those statements do not reflect her position"
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DonaldD on January 28, 2021, 02:07:51 PM
For some context, here is Greene not taking responsibility on Twitter:

Quote
Over the years, I've had teams of people manage my pages. Many posts have been liked. Many posts have been shared. Some did not represent my views. Especially the ones that CNN is about to spread across the internet

Notice what she does NOT say...
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: Lloyd Perna on January 28, 2021, 02:23:21 PM
This seems pretty clear to me "Some did not represent my views. Especially the ones that CNN is about to spread across the internet"
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: yossarian22c on January 28, 2021, 02:27:54 PM
Taylor Greene seems to know this, which is why she suggested that somebody else was using her Facebook account to post, that it wasn't her.  But no attempt was made to apologize for or to condemn those statements, as far as I have seen. What she dd say is something like "those statements do not reflect her position"

What was she doing prior to running for office that she would have other people posting on her personal facebook page?
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: TheDrake on January 28, 2021, 02:31:52 PM
If one of my friends, not a politician and not a celebrity, "likes" something - well I assume that means they like it. That's why it is called that. If somebody forwards it without commentary, I assume they support it.

If someone else manages somebody's social media account, for instance Sara Lee, and they post something that does not reflect the views of the company? Well, let's just say it is bad for the brand.

But I'll put a bookmark on here for the next time a Democrat like AOC "likes" something that you disagree with Lloyd. I'm sure it will be entertaining to watch your backflip.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: TheDrake on January 28, 2021, 02:59:14 PM
BTW, let's review. Greene thinks that Pelosi belongs to a ring of satan worshipping pedophiles. Is it really such a stretch to think that she wishes Pelosi was dead?
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: kidv on January 28, 2021, 03:00:05 PM
"Greene said Pelosi was "a traitor to our country, she's guilty of treason," saying it was "a crime punishable by death."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/01/27/marjorie-taylor-greene-facing-backlash-democrats-over-comments/4282313001/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/01/27/marjorie-taylor-greene-facing-backlash-democrats-over-comments/4282313001/)

What Greene "said," as an adjunct to just what she "liked" or agreed with. [circa Jan 2019]

[and then she liked a post saying "a bullet to the head would be quicker"]
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: msquared on January 28, 2021, 03:08:01 PM
but she should not be held personally responsible for her statements and what she did online (or was done in her name on line).  I mean she is a member of the party of Personal Non responsibility.  I mean check out Trump.  It was never his fault.  Ever.  None of the bankruptcies, not the Pandemic Response, not the loss in the election. There is no Buck to stop.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: TheDrake on January 28, 2021, 03:40:04 PM
TRUMP WAS THE GREATEST PRESIDENT OF ALL TIME! THE STORM IS COMING!

Maybe Marjorie will like my post.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DonaldD on January 28, 2021, 03:49:51 PM
BTW, let's review. Greene thinks that Pelosi belongs to a ring of satan worshipping pedophiles. Is it really such a stretch to think that she wishes Pelosi was dead?

Ignoring for a moment that the belief in the existence of a secret cabal of Satan-worshipping, cannibalistic pedophiles which is running a global child sex-trafficking ring is a level of batch!t craziness that should already be disqualifying for anybody to hold office, this is also something I wanted to ask: she believes Pelosi eats people, that Pelosi is a pedophile, and that Pelosi associates with a global ring of other cannibalistic pedophiles who are running a secret world government, yet she only "liked" and reposted comments calling for Pelosi's death, not because she agreed with them, but because... "hey, look what people are saying!".

If I honestly thought that somebody was eating babies and helping other people to eat and sexually abuse babies, and getting away with it because they controlled the justice system, I just might support having that person killed...

Darn it... what it is this thread called again?  I feel like we may have gone off topic.  Oh, no, my mistake.  It's pretty much on the nose, still.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: TheDrake on January 28, 2021, 04:09:57 PM
Off topic? It wasn't me. I was never there. You misunderstood. I was joking. It wasn't my fault. Some other person did it first. Some other person was worse.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: msquared on January 28, 2021, 04:12:31 PM
I'm msquared and  I approve this message.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: rightleft22 on January 28, 2021, 04:31:58 PM
Republicans had chosen new congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene for a spot on the House's labor and education committee.

Quote
Before she joined the House this month, Greene supported Facebook posts that advocated violence against Democrats and the FBI. One suggested shooting Pelosi in the head. In response to a post raising the prospect of hanging former president Barack Obama, Greene responded that the "stage is being set."

Greene once made a video that falsely suggested the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting that killed 58 people was staged to advance gun control legislation, and another video has come to light in which she accosted a Florida student who became an activist after a deadly shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla.

"I'm tired of seeing weak-kneed Republicans play defence. I will go on the attack," she said in a Nov. 18 post.

"It's our 1776 moment!" she posted the day before the mob rioted at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Greene is now texting supporters, seeking to raise money for her attempt to "impeach Biden." The fine print of her solicitations, however, shows that any funds she takes in will instead be routed to her campaign account.

Great choice for the educational committee .
I wonder if the GOP intention isn't to dumb down the electorate. A electorate that can easily be convinced of conspiracy and such can be easily manipulated. What could go wrong? A mob getting out of control...
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: Wayward Son on January 28, 2021, 05:02:43 PM
This is the only reason I have not changed my official part registration with the voters office.  Is to try and help moderate candidates, if there are any, on future primaries.

Unfortunately, msquared, others have not. (https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/536113-tens-of-thousands-of-voters-drop-republican-affiliation-after-capitol)

Quote
More than 30,000 voters who had been registered members of the Republican Party have changed their voter registration in the weeks after a mob of pro-Trump supporters attacked the Capitol — an issue that led the House to impeach the former president for inciting the violence.

The massive wave of defections is a virtually unprecedented exodus that could spell trouble for a party that is trying to find its way after losing the presidential race and the Senate majority.

It could also represent the tip of a much larger iceberg: The 30,000 who have left the Republican Party reside in just a few states that report voter registration data, and information about voters switching between parties, on a weekly basis...

Nearly 10,000 Pennsylvania voters dropped out of the Republican Party in the first 25 days of the year, according to the secretary of state’s office. About a third of them, 3,476, have registered as Democrats; the remaining two-thirds opted to register with another party or without any party affiliation.

By contrast, about a third as many Pennsylvania Democrats opted to either join the Republican Party (2,093 through Monday) or to register with no party or a minor party (1,184).

Almost 6,000 North Carolina voters have dropped their affiliation with the GOP. Nearly 5,000 Arizona voters are no longer registered Republicans. The number of defectors in Colorado stands north of 4,500 in the last few weeks. And 2,300 Maryland Republicans are now either unaffiliated or registered with the Democratic Party...

Several local elections offices in Florida reported a surge in registration changes in the days after the assault on the Capitol. Two counties in the Miami area reported a combined 1,000 Republicans registering under other labels in just the two days after the Jan. 6 attack. In those same two days, only 96 Democrats switched parties.

Three counties in the Tampa Bay area reported more than 2,000 Republican voters registering under some other party’s banner. In those same three counties — Hillsborough, Pasco and Pinellas — just 306 Democrats switched their affiliations.

So many voters switching parties absent a pending deadline has piqued the interest of elections experts. Most people tend to stick with the party with which they initially register, and those who do change are usually motivated by a looming primary election.

“Usually, absent a primary election that would induce people to switch parties so that they could participate in that primary, you don’t see much activity in party registration,” said Michael McDonald, a voting and elections expert at the University of Florida.

Only a small handful of states report voter registration data on a weekly basis. Others report monthly activity, and many states do not report granular details about those who leave one party or the other. Once more states report party registration data, the true number of Republicans who have re-registered in recent weeks may prove to be much higher.

If the Republican Party doesn't get its act together, there will be tens of thousands more who will switch just before the next election.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: msquared on January 28, 2021, 07:21:34 PM
Oh I know and I have debated what to do.  I am going to give it one more election cycle to see if I (one of our senators is not running 2022) and if no good moderate choices come forward or the Trump aligned idiots win, I will probably change to Independent.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DonaldD on January 30, 2021, 09:10:20 AM
Now that it seems like it is accepted orthodoxy in the Republican party that 9/11 was a hoax, will the party of personal responsibility be looking to charge members of the GW Bush administration for ware crimes for their involvement in commanding the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq?
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DJQuag on January 30, 2021, 11:25:49 AM
Now that it seems like it is accepted orthodoxy in the Republican party that 9/11 was a hoax, will the party of personal responsibility be looking to charge members of the GW Bush administration for ware crimes for their involvement in commanding the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq?

No.

Come on, man. They've got their crazies, we've got ours. They're a pain in the ass all around.

That they have a crazy who said on Facebook a few years back 9/11 was an inside job, that's unfortunate but we do *not* get to label the entire opposition based upon one nutjob. This isn't Facebook and I'm not quite sure where you get off trying to label a whole political party with something as brutal as "They all believe 9/11 was a hoax," but I doubt it's going to work here.

Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DonaldD on January 30, 2021, 12:06:41 PM
Not the point - she has supported threats of assassination of political, she has supported conspiracy theories including the belief in a worldwide cabal of baby cannibals, yet the vast majority of Republicans are afraid to disavow her or her ideas. And unfortunately, she is not the only QAnon supporter among Republicans elected to Congress.

THAT is the issue.  Of course Republicans don't, as a party, believe that 9/11 is a hoax.  But that they close ranks around the crazies (and in this case, named her to an education committee) is part of the issue.  The broader issue being that a significant portion of their base is married to dangerous conspiracies and the Republicans, instead of leading, have become the modern "know nothings".
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DonaldD on January 30, 2021, 12:23:22 PM
As for this:

They've got their crazies, we've got ours. They're a pain in the ass all around.

I think you've both-sides'ed yourself into a brain cramp.

The Republican crazies in Congress believe that mass killing events are hoaxes perpetrated by leftist actors meant to deprive real Americans of their rights.  They are coincidentally supported by the people who attacked Congress, who support confederate, nazi and holocaust symbols.

Leftist crazies in Congress believe that humans should have universal health coverage, and that society is still organized in ways that disadvantage Black people and other communities.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DJQuag on January 30, 2021, 12:44:04 PM
Nope. Not buying it.

When you say things like what you said you're attempting to smear the entire opposition with what their outliers said. You might as well have Cherry saying all liberals believe white people need to work as janitors for two generations to make things right.

"Now that it seems like it is accepted orthodoxy in the Republican party that 9/11 was a hoax, "

You wrote that. It's BS on the face of it and don't embarrass yourself by trying to defend it.

I wouldn't put up with that from him and I certainly won't be silent whilst one of my own attempts the same.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DJQuag on January 30, 2021, 01:14:25 PM
And on the subject of health care it's not that the right wing doesn't believe that poor people shouldn't have it, it's that they believe a free market will provide it.

Yeah, yeah, insane on the face of it to most of us but that's what they truly believe. We're gonna have to change hearts and minds here.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DonaldD on January 30, 2021, 01:15:30 PM
Don't be silly - the Republicans have been challenged to push back on the craziness. They refuse to do so.  They continue to refuse to do so.  And this is in the context of them making other choices concerning the attack on the Capitol.

And did you not really try to equate the belief in QAnon, mass shooter conspiracies, and 9/11 conspiracies with beliefs held by Dem members of Congress?  (not even getting into the supports for physical attacks against members of Congress)?

Who are these "crazy" Democratic members of Congress, and what are their espoused beliefs that are in any way equivalent to vocal support for QAnon or support for the murder of politicians belonging to the opposing party?
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DonaldD on January 30, 2021, 01:20:40 PM
And on the subject of health care it's not that the right wing doesn't believe that poor people shouldn't have it, it's that they believe a free market will provide it.

You reversed the point being made.  You were the one positing the existence of Democrat crazies in Congress (the "in Congress" is implicit since I was pointing out Republicans' support for members of Congress).  I tried to come up with the craziest position the Congressional Democrats hold (excluding the murder of babies thing).  Observing that Republicans have beliefs concerning health care doesn't actually address the fact you were equating the crazies on both sides.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DJQuag on January 30, 2021, 01:36:00 PM
Christ. This isn't about the sacred congresspeople and their gold-enshrouded farts. This is how we talk to one another, and you decided to attack everyone else with a stupid claim.

Also is it you or TheDrake who's the Canadian? I think it's you but can't quite remember. Those D names.

*censored* if it is you you're pretty mouthy on American politics, I'm a dual citizen and I usually tend to shut up on stuff lol.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DonaldD on January 30, 2021, 01:45:55 PM
Yes, it is about congress people.  It is literally about a person, voted into Congress, who believes there is a conspiracy involving Democrats eating and sexually abusing babies in a world wide conspiracy and who also supported statements about murdering Democratic politicians, and who claimed that 9/11 was a hoax, among other things.  And my statement was specifically about the Republican party, as represented by their elected officials, refusing to censure this person, or, heck, even to be seen to disagree with her.

Again I ask - who are these Democrat crazies in Congress, and what are they saying that is in any way equivalent to supporting the killing of political opponents?
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DJQuag on January 30, 2021, 01:50:49 PM
Look out everyone!

Four hundred and thirty five voting members of the House, *one* of them is certifiably insane, guess it's time for all of us to lose our *censored*.  The world is ending! Canada says our legislature is insane!

Lol.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DonaldD on January 30, 2021, 01:56:04 PM
You seem to forget - certifiably insane, yet supported by the former president, and supported by the vast majority of Republican Representative and Senators, either by omission or by commission.  You also seem to forget she was also named as a member to a committee.  As much as anything, she is a symptom of the illness in the Republican party.  The party needs, for its own good, to censure her.  If they continue to refuse to do so, the cancer definitely continue to spread.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: TheDrake on January 30, 2021, 02:01:54 PM
*censored* if it is you you're pretty mouthy on American politics, I'm a dual citizen and I usually tend to shut up on stuff lol.

I happen to be native born American, that doesn't stop me from commenting on UK politics or any other nation for that matter. Canada is directly affected by nearly everything that the US does, that's how it is when you are the sole superpower. It's not hard to understand why a bordering nation with massive ties might be disturbed by US policy. The US acceptance of psychotic beliefs emboldens like minded people in Brazil, the UK, and across the globe.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DJQuag on January 30, 2021, 02:08:25 PM
Yeah, how about they don't.
How about they just let people vote for what they believe in, even if that *censored* is certifiably insane.

***Joking*** You Canadians trying to interfere with our election is just like the Russians.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DonaldD on January 30, 2021, 02:32:01 PM
You think anything posted here has any effect on people's ability to vote for their preferred candidate? :)  I think you vastly overestimate the power of the internet word.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: TheDrake on January 30, 2021, 05:16:46 PM
Donald is totally changing the minds of the eight people here who can vote in the US. :)
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: TheDeamon on January 30, 2021, 07:22:29 PM
Not the point - she has supported threats of assassination of political, she has supported conspiracy theories including the belief in a worldwide cabal of baby cannibals, yet the vast majority of Republicans are afraid to disavow her or her ideas. And unfortunately, she is not the only QAnon supporter among Republicans elected to Congress.

THAT is the issue.  Of course Republicans don't, as a party, believe that 9/11 is a hoax.  But that they close ranks around the crazies (and in this case, named her to an education committee) is part of the issue.  The broader issue being that a significant portion of their base is married to dangerous conspiracies and the Republicans, instead of leading, have become the modern "know nothings".

So...If we're kicking wacky Republicans out of Congress, why are the Democratic whack-jobs being allowed to stay?

Granted, I'd happily see the conservative ones gone so they don't enable people doing what you're doing right now. People are entitled to their views, even if they're insane.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DonaldD on January 30, 2021, 07:34:16 PM
Be specific.  Which Democratic whack jobs?  And what are you accusing those whack jobs of doing? 

Granted, I'd happily see the conservative ones gone so they don't enable people doing what you're doing right now. People are entitled to their views, even if they're insane.

Shouldn't you want her gone because she has supported statements calling for the killing of members of Congress; for belonging to a group, and supporting a group, that believes that her political opponents belong to a world-wide cabal of baby-eating pederasts, and that those pederasts are running the world?  For promoting the idea that the worst mass shooting/killing events in the past couple of decades were the result of Democrat actors belonging to a conspiracy to take away her guns?

As opposed to simply because it is not politically expedient to continue associating with an insane person, nor to be seen to be supporting an insane person's presence in a leadership role in the government and one's party?
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: TheDeamon on January 30, 2021, 07:35:07 PM
Yes, it is about congress people.  It is literally about a person, voted into Congress, who believes there is a conspiracy involving Democrats eating and sexually abusing babies in a world wide conspiracy and who also supported statements about murdering Democratic politicians, and who claimed that 9/11 was a hoax, among other things.  And my statement was specifically about the Republican party, as represented by their elected officials, refusing to censure this person, or, heck, even to be seen to disagree with her.

Again I ask - who are these Democrat crazies in Congress, and what are they saying that is in any way equivalent to supporting the killing of political opponents?

Hank Johnson, D-GA has openly expressed concerns about Guam capsizing.
Maxine Waters D-CA has produced a number of gems over the years, although sadly I barely recall most of them. Her incitement against Trump Admin officials in 2018 earn a special mention.
Speaking of incitement.
Cory Booker Senator, D-NJ also deserves mention.

And they're just the low-lying fruit.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DonaldD on January 30, 2021, 07:36:30 PM
OK, so what are the specifics?
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DonaldD on January 30, 2021, 07:45:04 PM
Hank Johnson, D-GA has openly expressed concerns about Guam capsizing.

You think an inartful metaphor is in any way equivalent to any of those issues raised concerning Taylor Greene?  Really?   Even if you think he meant the island would literally tip over, that would just mean he was stupid.  Is that really equivalent to having supported the killing of her current coworkers?
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: TheDeamon on January 30, 2021, 07:56:57 PM
Shouldn't you want her gone because she has supported statements calling for the killing of members of Congress; for belonging to a group, and supporting a group, that believes that her political opponents belong to a world-wide cabal of baby-eating pederasts, and that those pederasts are running the world?  For promoting the idea that the worst mass shooting/killing events in the past couple of decades were the result of Democrat actors belonging to a conspiracy to take away her guns?

I'm going to have to go with you're assuming a hyperbolic and overly literal interpretation of her statements. I agree they're of concern, and warrant many of her fellow members of Congress giving her a wide berth. I strongly suspect she'll be primaried in 2022, people simply didn't do enough homework on her. As to getting rid of her before then. Colorado's Governor is a Democrat, and their legislature is also under strong Democratic control. Republicans will take the right-wing nutjob over either a vacant seat or whatever the Dems might deign to put in there to fill the seat until a special election can be held(if one is even called).

Quote
As opposed to simply because it is not politically expedient to continue associating with an insane person, nor to be seen to be supporting an insane person's presence in a leadership role in the government and one's party?

Committee memberships don't mean what you think they mean. As it is, she's a very junior committee member for the minority party on a committee that really doesn't have much influence on education policy in the United States because most such policies originate at the state level in the first place.

Now if she'd been given a position in the Department of Education, there might be some real grounds for concern, but as the Education Committee cannot do anything directly and requires actions on the part of the entire House and the Senate, she's harmless in that position. Given the foot she's started off on, a GS13 in the federal Department of Education has more influence over education policy than she is likely to ever have... Beyond being able to ask really dumb questions people have to answer under oath. But for a body that has given us "The internet is a series of tubes" and the capsizing Guam... Dumb is par for the course.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: TheDeamon on January 30, 2021, 08:12:28 PM
You think an inartful metaphor is in any way equivalent to any of those issues raised concerning Taylor Greene?  Really?   Even if you think he meant the island would literally tip over, that would just mean he was stupid.  Is that really equivalent to having supported the killing of her current coworkers?

Okay.

"The penalty for treason is death." (true)
"Nancy Pelosi is guilty of Treason." (open to interpretation, she hasn't been convicted by judge or jury though)
"Nancy Pelosi should be hung [for treason]." (opinion) (I don't think Hanging is allowed anymore due to SCotUS rulings, but anyhow...)

At what point do those three statements become "Somebody should abduct Nancy Pelosi and hang her" in your world? That is not what she's said.

Of but she also tweeted "A bullet would be faster" (in regards to Pelosi) where she is disputing that she was the one who posted that.

Even if she did type it out herself, you get into 1st Amendment issues, and the matter of that still falls short of her saying "Someone should go out and assassinate Nancy Pelosi."

That one can easily be explained away as "figurative speech" rather than instructive and inciting, and also a matter of opinion(which is also factually correct, rather gauche, but correct).

If holding an opinion about something which views an illegal action in a favorable way is a crime, everyone is likely to be in deep trouble. Now some opinions are better left unsaid, but that's obviously not the world she wants to live in, so let the consequences begin. But don't go running around requiring everyone else to virtue signal by becoming part of the lynch mob you want to create to go after her.

This is an issue between her and the other members of Congress, as well as between her, and the constituents of her district. Where honestly, the opinion of Congress takes a back seat to her constituents in Colorado. If they support her, then that is the representation they want in Congress, the rest of us will have to live with it.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DJQuag on January 30, 2021, 09:39:37 PM
You think anything posted here has any effect on people's ability to vote for their preferred candidate? :)  I think you vastly overestimate the power of the internet word.

Of course I don't. That's why I made it clear I was joking.

My friend, you and I agree on almost everything. Taylor Green is an offensive human being, thankfully her term is two years and she'll be booted via primary or general election if the Reps are stupid enough to give her continued support.

I'm a European socialist who spent twenty years growing up in the States. I've sèen the best and the worst of both systems. And I really do agree with you on things.

All I was objecting to was that stupid comment. It was something I'd expect Lambert or Cherry to say talking about us. We need to be better then that.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DonaldD on January 31, 2021, 09:04:43 AM
If holding an opinion about something which views an illegal action in a favorable way is a crime,

I don't think anybody is claiming that is a crime; that's more than a little bit of a straw man - what it is, is completely unacceptable behaviour.  Arguing that even just implying political opponents should be killed is somehow now acceptable (though that is the most generous interpretation of Taylor Greene's pattern of conduct) is evidence of just how far political discourse has fallen, but not just that - in the current context, I think we have all seen just where demonizing political opponents and normalizing threats and support for violence against one's opponents brings you.

It's truly sad that people now feel it necessary to support their own team even if it means trying to excuse their most rabid comrades calling for the death of one's opponents.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: msquared on January 31, 2021, 09:09:12 AM
But Socialist?  Communist? Her e-mails? Benghazi?
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: TheDeamon on January 31, 2021, 12:08:12 PM
It's truly sad that people now feel it necessary to support their own team even if it means trying to excuse their most rabid comrades calling for the death of one's opponents.

No, in this case it's a very simple test.

Either you support freedom of speech, or you don't.

You obviously don't.

It's that simple.

The speech in this case may be odious, but it is just that, speech.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: msquared on January 31, 2021, 12:15:01 PM
Even Freedom of Speech has limits, as has been proven in the Courts for centuries.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DonaldD on January 31, 2021, 12:24:21 PM
The Daemon, you seem to be conflating freedom of speech with "freedom from consequences"... something that has become prevalent in the right over the past few years.

The Republican party will face the consequences of accepting crazy people into their fold.  Not using one's own "freedom of speech" to clarify that the Republican party does not support calling for the deaths of their political opponents is a choice, and one that has already led to mass defections from the party.  It is also a choice that allows other people to make judgments based on that decision, like "it is more important to avoid being primaried than to call out blatant evil" or "I choose to associate with evil because I am afraid that the base will target my family".

Again, this seems to be another example of the "party of personal responsibility" desperately hoping to avoid taking responsibility.

Also, please do show where I am urging that Taylor Greene be arrested for her likes, reposts, and statements about paying for freedom with the "price of blood". Especially since I just stated, in my immediately preceding post, that I don't think those statements and likes rise to the level of being a crime.

As an aside, Taylor Greene has no constituents in Colorado.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: TheDeamon on January 31, 2021, 12:52:50 PM
As an aside, Taylor Greene has no constituents in Colorado.

I stand corrected, she represents Georgia. I've been largely ignoring the press and what coverage I saw had me associating her with Colorado.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: Fenring on January 31, 2021, 01:06:18 PM
The Daemon, you seem to be conflating freedom of speech with "freedom from consequences"

I just got triggered reading this.

Carry on, citizens.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: Grant on January 31, 2021, 01:19:17 PM

No, in this case it's a very simple test.

Either you support freedom of speech, or you don't.

If it was just about the Jews controlling space lasers or 9/11 or election bs, you might have an argument.  But advocating violence against any other member of Congress or the government, even if it is just tacit approval or a "should", is enough for an individual to be thrown out of government service.  This goes beyond just being a moron.  Sheila Jackson Lee is probably bigger than all your examples. 
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: msquared on January 31, 2021, 02:38:32 PM
So why is Greene scrubbing her social media posts now?  I mean, is she embarrassed by what she liked and posted?  Or is she proud of it? Was she just pandering to her base by those likes and now wants to rewrite history?  Is she so tech illiterate that she does not know that once something is on the internet, it is there for good?  It will not help to go back and try and erase the past?

She is behaving like some one who has something to hide.  I wonder why?
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: Fenring on January 31, 2021, 02:45:04 PM
So why is Greene scrubbing her social media posts now?  I mean, is she embarrassed by what she liked and posted?  Or is she proud of it? Was she just pandering to her base by those likes and now wants to rewrite history?  Is she so tech illiterate that she does not know that once something is on the internet, it is there for good?  It will not help to go back and try and erase the past?

She is behaving like some one who has something to hide.  I wonder why?

I have no idea what she said or why she is doing this. But out of context your questions are naive. It's probably good practice for anyone in a tenuous public position to scrub their social media, and from now on only post things curated by a team. The culture of necroing old tweets and posts to destroy someone makes it too easy to miss something in your post history from years ago that can come back to haunt you. Conspicuously burning all your records is just prudence.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: msquared on January 31, 2021, 02:52:38 PM
Yeah but you do it before hand. When you win the election.

Why wait to burn the documents after they have been copied?  It is doing her no good and making her look even worse to her base, like she is sorry she posted it.  I mean take some personal responsibility for what you did in the past.

Oh yeah, that part of the party was cut out when Trump won in 2016.  Since Trump was not responsible for anything and he told you that time and time again.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: msquared on January 31, 2021, 02:55:29 PM
And why are defending her if you have no idea of what she said/did?
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: Fenring on January 31, 2021, 04:25:38 PM
And why are defending her if you have no idea of what she said/did?

Because in this day and age there are too many reasons to scrub your twitter history to draw positive conclusions from it. Maybe she did it at a stupid time; it's not like everyone is so savvy about these things. I just think that right now it shouldn't surprise anyone that certain people are going to scrub their histories. And I also think it's naive to say just own what you've said in the past on these media. We've all seen what can be done to people based on social media history.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DonaldD on January 31, 2021, 05:02:07 PM
She didn't remove all her posts - just the troublesome ones.

Now, if she was removing these posts as part of a broader strategy to walk back those positions, apologize for unintended  insult, and just spur of the moment brain farts, that might make sense.  But surreptitiously removing them without taking ownership, after the totality of the posts have already been widely shared and panned?  She should fire her communications person.

As for this:
Quote
The culture of necroing old tweets and posts to destroy someone makes it too easy to miss something in your post history from years ago that can come back to haunt you.

It's not like these posts were subtle "gotcha" posts that nobody could have been expected to have been blamed for - she was supporting the killing of her political opponents.  Posting these things is a complete self-own, self-destroy.  Implying there is blame to the person digging them up is a bit rich.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: TheDrake on January 31, 2021, 07:21:11 PM
I wonder if the apologists would be so forgiving if AOC had advocated the murder of Mitch McConnell and then deleted her posts.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: TheDeamon on January 31, 2021, 07:58:05 PM
I wonder if the apologists would be so forgiving if AOC had advocated the murder of Mitch McConnell and then deleted her posts.

Depends on how she phrased it. We seem to have very different interpretations of what constituted "advocating for murder" in this case it seems.

On the other hand, I guess we could go digging for all of those Democratic/Liberal pundits who want to put Trump voters in "re-education camps" given what the historical connotations of those are globally.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: TheDrake on January 31, 2021, 08:15:01 PM
I wonder if the apologists would be so forgiving if AOC had advocated the murder of Mitch McConnell and then deleted her posts.

Depends on how she phrased it. We seem to have very different interpretations of what constituted "advocating for murder" in this case it seems.

On the other hand, I guess we could go digging for all of those Democratic/Liberal pundits who want to put Trump voters in "re-education camps" given what the historical connotations of those are globally.

#1, make it a hundred percent equivalent. AOC likes a post that says a "bullet to the head would be quicker".
#2, there is a wide gulf between a pundit, agitator, activist, malcontent, and an elected official
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DonaldD on January 31, 2021, 08:36:25 PM
#2, there is a wide gulf between a pundit, agitator, activist, malcontent, and an elected official

My personal favourite is when certain people pull out Kathy Griffin as a counter example.  The internet is a big place, with lots of crazy in it, and you will find crazy on every side of every topic.  But Kathy Griffin isn't a member of the national legislature.  Oh, I almost forgot - she has also been unemployable since her Trump head stunt.

Re-education camps, huh?  Show me an elected official spewing that nonsense.  Now, if you meant this guy (https://www.usnews.com/news/entertainment/articles/2021-01-12/pbs-lawyer-resigns-after-being-caught-in-veritas-sting), TheDaemon, as some sort of equivalency... well, he was forced to resign.  Are you advocating the Republican party force Taylor Greene to resign, now?  And, not that i am defending this idiot, but spouting off to a girl you're trying to impress in a bar (where you have a certain expectation of having a private, at least, not a published conversation) is quite different from publicly making statements and promoting those posts as Taylor Greene did.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DonaldD on January 31, 2021, 09:18:32 PM
Well, it looks like at least one GOP Senator, Rob Portman, agrees that the Republican party should censure Taylor Greene (https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/31/politics/rob-portman-marjorie-taylor-greene-cnntv/index.html); so maybe the idea isn't so crazy after all.

Of course, Portman has said he will not be running for reelection in 2022, so I guess that makes it a bit easier to take a principled stand.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: TheDeamon on February 01, 2021, 01:27:51 AM
Well, it looks like at least one GOP Senator, Rob Portman, agrees that the Republican party should censure Taylor Greene (https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/31/politics/rob-portman-marjorie-taylor-greene-cnntv/index.html); so maybe the idea isn't so crazy after all.

Of course, Portman has said he will not be running for reelection in 2022, so I guess that makes it a bit easier to take a principled stand.

I'd be 100% fine with censure. It's completely symbolic, but it makes the stand you guys so desperately crave.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DJQuag on February 01, 2021, 08:33:44 AM
"#2, there is a wide gulf between a pundit, agitator, activist, malcontent, and an elected official"

Could just me being real ignorant right about now, but I'm not seeing the gulf.

Yeah, she's elected. To you, that means she has unimaginable cosmic power, to others it means she has been chosen in a free and fair election to represent her constituency. You gonna remove their voice in the Congress because she said some crazy stuff? Seems a bold move to me, Cotton. Let's see how it works.

Maybe her constituency consists mostly of *censored*bags. Eh, it happens. As mentioned, she's one out of hundreds. Her term is two years. She'll be gone sooner rather then later and if it wasn't for the media amplifying her bull*censored* beyond any reasonable standard she'd barely be known and she'd have no power.

Only the Georgian crazies supported her before. Well done! She's a national figure now! Now she can get *all* the crazies!
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DonaldD on February 01, 2021, 08:52:57 AM
If person 'A', employed by 'ACME co', makes public comments that put ACME in a bad situation, either PR wise, or in ways that conflict with their policy or direction, ACME will almost certainly take actions to protect their brand.  If they don't they will reap the benefits of that decision as well.  This is especially true if person 'A' has a publicly visible position, and especially if they are seen to have authority within the company.  It might even change the perception of their whole brand.

If person 'B', who is NOT employed by ACME, does the same, ACME won't be in the same position. If ACME does not act against person 'B', ACME is not going to have a problem. 

Taylor Greene is becoming the brand of the Republicans - the different levels of crazy, including the support for killing political opponents.  If other leaders don't actively push back on this person, offering tacit approval (and the approval seems to be more than just tacit at this point) that will become their brand.  The problem is, they seem to want that to be their brand for a specific subset of the population.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DJQuag on February 01, 2021, 09:05:20 AM
Nope.

Political parties are something entirely different from business corporations, that difference being a lot of people with different motivations come together in a political party for ultimate negotiated gains, and we call the a political party  and a lot of people with similar motivations came together in a corporation to be ridiculous. We call it socialism. Eh. Guess we'll find out.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DonaldD on February 01, 2021, 09:13:12 AM
Yup. 

Political parties are actually more dependent on their brand, because the brand is literally what they are selling.  And what they are selling now, unless they come out and dissociate themselves with Taylor Greene's ideas strongly, is a particular set of ideas that are currently very popular with a significant percentage of Republican voters.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: Wayward Son on February 01, 2021, 10:00:42 AM
There is one telling way to show how the Republican Party is crazier than the Democrats.

Who do the Republican punish? (https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/01/gop-civil-war-464186)

Will it be Greene, who has uttered and agreed with outrageous claims that any sane American would turn away from, including agreeing with the execution of a coworker?

Or Cheney, who had the audacity to claim that Trump actually did something worth impeaching him for, which many Americans agree with?

If you had to choose, which do you think an inclusive party has more reason to censure?

Now point to who the Democrats try to punish, and who they should have punished.

It is already a bridge too far for dozens of Bush Administration officials (https://politicalwire.com/2021/02/01/dozens-of-ex-bush-officials-leave-the-republican-party/), who have decided to leave the Republican Party.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: rightleft22 on February 01, 2021, 10:25:04 AM
They didn't leave the GOP the party left them...

I don't recognize or understand this new "conservatism" which is any thing but conservative
Where is the prudence, rule of law, trust but verify, balanced regulation, service as a ideal for the good of the whole...

To be fair I don't recognize the new liberalism either which is anything but liberal
Where we are  defined by worse thing we have ever done with no room for forgives or learning better justifying cancelation of people... reinforcing labels as identity that at the same time they say they wish to transcend.

So confusing.

Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: TheDrake on February 01, 2021, 10:47:41 AM
It absolutely damages the Republican brand in more moderate areas. If you donate to RNC, you're supporting Greene as it stands. Some people are not going to be okay with that. You are impacted by who you associate with. If my CEO was spouting that *censored*, I'd quit the company as soon as possible.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: NobleHunter on February 01, 2021, 10:56:37 AM
So if moderate and reasonable conservatives are being driven out of the Republican party and the Democrats are trending to the left, how long until the two party system cracks and allows the formation of a centrist party? If so many voters are being left out, one would expect there to be some re-alignment.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: rightleft22 on February 01, 2021, 11:06:56 AM
A centrist party could bring the House and Senet back into performing their jobs. Democracy relies on compromise and working together. A third party could help fascinate that or maybe not...

In a Democracy what does it mean to say Many voters are being left out?

No one in a democracy should expect to have everything go their way or like everything, its about establishing healthy boundaries as in any relationship.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: msquared on February 01, 2021, 11:09:18 AM
It is the thought that compromise is evil and a surrender of your beliefs. It has gotten out of hand on both sides, but it seems worse on the conservative side.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: TheDrake on February 01, 2021, 11:09:55 AM
The best chance for a unity party type of approach would be at the state legislature level first. There might be a few US districts that might allow a congressional run, but too many have been engineered as "safe" districts.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: TheDeamon on February 01, 2021, 12:03:20 PM
If person 'A', employed by 'ACME co', makes public comments that put ACME in a bad situation, either PR wise, or in ways that conflict with their policy or direction, ACME will almost certainly take actions to protect their brand.  If they don't they will reap the benefits of that decision as well.  This is especially true if person 'A' has a publicly visible position, and especially if they are seen to have authority within the company.  It might even change the perception of their whole brand.

If person 'B', who is NOT employed by ACME, does the same, ACME won't be in the same position. If ACME does not act against person 'B', ACME is not going to have a problem. 

Taylor Greene is becoming the brand of the Republicans - the different levels of crazy, including the support for killing political opponents.  If other leaders don't actively push back on this person, offering tacit approval (and the approval seems to be more than just tacit at this point) that will become their brand.  The problem is, they seem to want that to be their brand for a specific subset of the population.

You seem to have a very different view of how political parties function than what the American model has been historically, or what I'd prefer the American model to be going forward.

The National Party Organizations should be having exactly 0 influence on what happens at the local level. APAL -- All Politics Are Local.

You're wanting to make a local decision about representation and have the national organization invalidate it because the locals "chose poorly." It doesn't change the matter that they chose her, it's between them and her. Not the rest of us.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: TheDeamon on February 01, 2021, 12:07:46 PM
There is one telling way to show how the Republican Party is crazier than the Democrats.

Who do the Republican punish? (https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/01/gop-civil-war-464186)

Will it be Greene, who has uttered and agreed with outrageous claims that any sane American would turn away from, including agreeing with the execution of a coworker?

Or Cheney, who had the audacity to claim that Trump actually did something worth impeaching him for, which many Americans agree with?

If you had to choose, which do you think an inclusive party has more reason to censure?

Now point to who the Democrats try to punish, and who they should have punished.

It is already a bridge too far for dozens of Bush Administration officials (https://politicalwire.com/2021/02/01/dozens-of-ex-bush-officials-leave-the-republican-party/), who have decided to leave the Republican Party.

See, funny thing about the Bush43 administration, and the Cheney Family. There are a bunch of these people who were called "NeoCons" among their number. NeoCons have a lot in common with the Corporate part of the DNC. They love optional wars, they love corporate handouts from the Government, and they don't care about anyone without at least a 7 figure balance sheet.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: rightleft22 on February 01, 2021, 12:11:32 PM
If person 'A', employed by 'ACME co', makes public comments that put ACME in a bad situation, either PR wise, or in ways that conflict with their policy or direction, ACME will almost certainly take actions to protect their brand.  If they don't they will reap the benefits of that decision as well.  This is especially true if person 'A' has a publicly visible position, and especially if they are seen to have authority within the company.  It might even change the perception of their whole brand.

If person 'B', who is NOT employed by ACME, does the same, ACME won't be in the same position. If ACME does not act against person 'B', ACME is not going to have a problem. 

Taylor Greene is becoming the brand of the Republicans - the different levels of crazy, including the support for killing political opponents.  If other leaders don't actively push back on this person, offering tacit approval (and the approval seems to be more than just tacit at this point) that will become their brand.  The problem is, they seem to want that to be their brand for a specific subset of the population.

You seem to have a very different view of how political parties function than what the American model has been historically, or what I'd prefer the American model to be going forward.

The National Party Organizations should be having exactly 0 influence on what happens at the local level. APAL -- All Politics Are Local.

You're wanting to make a local decision about representation and have the national organization invalidate it because the locals "chose poorly." It doesn't change the matter that they chose her, it's between them and her. Not the rest of us.

You may be forgetting about the party whips. The term "whip" comes from a fox-hunting expression— "whipper-in"—referring to the member of the hunting team responsible for keeping the dogs from straying from the team during a chase. Established early in the 20th century, the development of party whips coincided with the evolution of party leaders in the Senate.

When a member strays the whip brings them back in line. This is not invalidate the local representation but puts them in context with party goals. Members of a party can be held accountable to the party without invalidating their election. 
If a member is not held accountable and even given plum assignments that is a sign of where the party is heading. and who wiping whom. Or in this case if the tail is waging the dog?

Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DonaldD on February 01, 2021, 12:11:46 PM
You're wanting to make a local decision about representation and have the national organization invalidate it because the locals "chose poorly." It doesn't change the matter that they chose her, it's between them and her. Not the rest of us.

That would be so convenient, but no - the national organization, if it doesn't speak now, will be associated with that person's positions, like it or not.  It's not like there is a rule that says the national organization must be punished for the sins of its members.  But the silence is just one more piece of evidence illustrating what the party currently values. And naming her to a committee?  That's not even silence.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DJQuag on February 01, 2021, 12:50:23 PM
You're wanting to make a local decision about representation and have the national organization invalidate it because the locals "chose poorly." It doesn't change the matter that they chose her, it's between them and her. Not the rest of us.

That would be so convenient, but no - the national organization, if it doesn't speak now, will be associated with that person's positions, like it or not.  It's not like there is a rule that says the national organization must be punished for the sins of its members.  But the silence is just one more piece of evidence illustrating what the party currently values. And naming her to a committee?  That's not even silence.

Don't they all get named to a committee? Again, could be wrong, willing to hear it. How many of her fellow freshman Reps found themselves named to a Committee? Who didn't?
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: TheDeamon on February 01, 2021, 12:54:06 PM
You're wanting to make a local decision about representation and have the national organization invalidate it because the locals "chose poorly." It doesn't change the matter that they chose her, it's between them and her. Not the rest of us.

That would be so convenient, but no - the national organization, if it doesn't speak now, will be associated with that person's positions, like it or not.  It's not like there is a rule that says the national organization must be punished for the sins of its members.  But the silence is just one more piece of evidence illustrating what the party currently values. And naming her to a committee?  That's not even silence.

Don't they all get named to a committee? Again, could be wrong, willing to hear it. How many of her fellow freshman Reps found themselves named to a Committee? Who didn't?

Everyone gets a committee seat, many get two seats. There is also a pecking order for a lot of them, so you can sometimes tell how a person rates with the leadership based on the committee memberships they have. (exception being when a member wants a seat in a given committee for "reasons")
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: TheDeamon on February 01, 2021, 01:03:22 PM
This is from the 103rd Congress(Democrats):
https://archives-democrats-rules.house.gov/Archives/jcoc2d.htm
Quote
House. For assignment purposes, both parties have grouped standing committees into three categories -- exclusive, major, and non-major for Democrats and red, white, and blue for Republicans. The Democratic and Republican categories are similar but not identical. While the current Democratic categories are the same as those first incorporated into Caucus Rules in 1975, Republican categories tend to be somewhat more fluid. Membership on select and joint committees is not subject to party restrictions; the Speaker assigns Members to these panels, appointing Republicans on the recommendation of the Minority Leader.

Most Representatives may serve on two standing committees. However, Democrats may only serve on one exclusive committee (Appropriations, Rules, Ways and Means) and Republicans may only serve on one red committee (Appropriations, Energy and Commerce, Rules, Ways and Means). Other Democrats generally may serve on either a major and a non-major committee, or two non-major committees. Other Republicans generally may serve on one white and one blue committee, or two blue committees. Certain standing committees are exempted from these restrictions by both Democratic Caucus and Republican Conference Rules. For instance, both parties allow Members to serve on the Standards of Official Conduct Committee without regard to their other assignments. Democratic Caucus Rules also provide exemptions for the District of Columbia and House Administration Committees, and for members assigned to the Foreign Affairs and Judiciary Committees during particular Congresses.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DJQuag on February 01, 2021, 01:08:18 PM
You're wanting to make a local decision about representation and have the national organization invalidate it because the locals "chose poorly." It doesn't change the matter that they chose her, it's between them and her. Not the rest of us.

That would be so convenient, but no - the national organization, if it doesn't speak now, will be associated with that person's positions, like it or not.  It's not like there is a rule that says the national organization must be punished for the sins of its members.  But the silence is just one more piece of evidence illustrating what the party currently values. And naming her to a committee?  That's not even silence.

Don't they all get named to a committee? Again, could be wrong, willing to hear it. How many of her fellow freshman Reps found themselves named to a Committee? Who didn't?

Everyone gets a committee seat, many get two seats. There is also a pecking order for a lot of them, so you can sometimes tell how a person rates with the leadership based on the committee memberships they have. (exception being when a member wants a seat in a given committee for "reasons")

Fair enough.  All I'm asking is how she got treated as compared to her fellows.

Better, poorly, whatever. It's one of the arrows in their quiver, "The committee of Education!" and I'm trying to get a grasp on how normal that is.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: msquared on February 01, 2021, 01:14:00 PM
I think the brouhaha over the Education committee is that she has said that school shootings are false flag operations and/or did not happen and that the families are actors.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: Grant on February 01, 2021, 01:26:25 PM
Better, poorly, whatever. It's one of the arrows in their quiver, "The committee of Education!" and I'm trying to get a grasp on how normal that is.

I'm of the opinion that the House Committee on Education and Labor is basically the basement in terms of committee membership.  Take a look at some of the names?  Ever heard of any of them?  When is the last time they've been in the news?  Never.  She was sent to the basement and not given a second membership. 

Could House Republicans do more?  Sure.  But they havn't.  If the Democrats want to get rid of her they can open up expulsion proceedings but will need 2/3s of the House.  Since 1861, only House members who have been convicted of crimes have been expelled.  That's not just a Republican thing.  Want her expelled?  Have a DA charge her with a crime and convict her. 
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DJQuag on February 01, 2021, 01:32:07 PM
I think the brouhaha over the Education committee is that she has said that school shootings are false flag operations and/or did not happen and that the families are actors.

Eh.

That sounds a lot like stuff that doesn't matter. At least, to the kids learning.

What are we teaching kids in HS?  Are they learning logic? Basic civics?

A fundamental aspect of the Constitution and how it works? How it works for *us?*. If not, it's all BS anyway and we are *all* wasting our time because we're all screwed.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DJQuag on February 01, 2021, 01:35:21 PM
Better, poorly, whatever. It's one of the arrows in their quiver, "The committee of Education!" and I'm trying to get a grasp on how normal that is.

I'm of the opinion that the House Committee on Education and Labor is basically the basement in terms of committee membership.  Take a look at some of the names?  Ever heard of any of them?  When is the last time they've been in the news?  Never.  She was sent to the basement and not given a second membership. 

Could House Republicans do more?  Sure.  But they havn't.  If the Democrats want to get rid of her they can open up expulsion proceedings but will need 2/3s of the House.  Since 1861, only House members who have been convicted of crimes have been expelled.  That's not just a Republican thing.  Want her expelled?  Have a DA charge her with a crime and convict her.

Totes, my man.

Have her quietly taken out back and shot in the head. Metaphorically speaking of course.

That was what we could have done before but they've spread her poison and allowed it to become a replacement for Trumpism. She'd just be a martyr now.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: TheDrake on February 01, 2021, 02:23:15 PM
You're wanting to make a local decision about representation and have the national organization invalidate it because the locals "chose poorly." It doesn't change the matter that they chose her, it's between them and her. Not the rest of us.

That would be so convenient, but no - the national organization, if it doesn't speak now, will be associated with that person's positions, like it or not.  It's not like there is a rule that says the national organization must be punished for the sins of its members.  But the silence is just one more piece of evidence illustrating what the party currently values. And naming her to a committee?  That's not even silence.

Don't they all get named to a committee? Again, could be wrong, willing to hear it. How many of her fellow freshman Reps found themselves named to a Committee? Who didn't?

Everyone gets a committee seat, many get two seats. There is also a pecking order for a lot of them, so you can sometimes tell how a person rates with the leadership based on the committee memberships they have. (exception being when a member wants a seat in a given committee for "reasons")

And yet they can lose all their committee seats. Just look at Rep. King, whose racist comments got him shunned by the Republicans.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DJQuag on February 01, 2021, 02:33:55 PM
You're wanting to make a local decision about representation and have the national organization invalidate it because the locals "chose poorly." It doesn't change the matter that they chose her, it's between them and her. Not the rest of us.

That would be so convenient, but no - the national organization, if it doesn't speak now, will be associated with that person's positions, like it or not.  It's not like there is a rule that says the national organization must be punished for the sins of its members.  But the silence is just one more piece of evidence illustrating what the party currently values. And naming her to a committee?  That's not even silence.

Don't they all get named to a committee? Again, could be wrong, willing to hear it. How many of her fellow freshman Reps found themselves named to a Committee? Who didn't?

Everyone gets a committee seat, many get two seats. There is also a pecking order for a lot of them, so you can sometimes tell how a person rates with the leadership based on the committee memberships they have. (exception being when a member wants a seat in a given committee for "reasons")

And yet they can lose all their committee seats. Just look at Rep. King, whose racist comments got him shunned by the Republicans.

Course they can!

We all gonna hold the line so one POS with 1/435 power in the national legislature can hold? Course not! They're a piece of *censored*!  Find some other way to remove him, not interested.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DonaldD on February 01, 2021, 06:42:01 PM
We all gonna hold the line so one POS with 1/435 power in the national legislature can hold?

I'm not sure what "hold the line" means in this context, but that does ignore that she does not simply hold 1/435th of the power.  She just had a private audience with the man in who's name thousands (1? 2? 3?) of people violently attacked the Capitol and tried to prevent the transfer of power; how many other Congress people got an audience with the orange man-child (aside from McCarthy, who slunk in to see Trump to beg forgiveness and kiss the ring?)  Not to mention - 45% of Republicans supported the attack on the Capitol the following day - I can't say I've seen an analysis of the overlap, but it is not a stretch to believe there is more overlap between that 45% and her support than there is with any other member of Congress (most congress people being nameless drones outside of their own districts).

She is the current darling of tens of millions of QAnon believers for 'speaking their truth', a truth that names their political opponents (yes, Democrats, as well as globalists and, well, those people always associated with "cabals") as sexual predators, murderers and, well, eaters of babies; literally 24% of U.S. adults believe that claims made by QAnon supporters are either very or somewhat accurate and she is their current uncontested voice in government.

So no - she holds much more than just 1/435th of the power in the national legislature.  Until they can buy it back, or until she self-destructs, she and Trump own the soul of the Republican party.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DJQuag on February 01, 2021, 07:10:08 PM
Jesus, why do you keep giving the orange man toad more power then he really has?

"She had an audience?!?"

Who gives a *censored* who that little toad wants to talk to these days. He is *done.*

After Jan 6th even the majority of his own party want absolutely nothing to do with him. Impeachment aside, and I truly do get the idea of telling someone, "No, really, you need to go *censored* yourself," but these are people just like us who need to answer to their constituents. If the will isn't there we don't need to be blaming them, we need to blame the people they answer to.

He's a 75 year old fat man. I don't expect GRRM to give us an answer to AGOIAF, I never have, and I'm just fed up with the rest of you giving this one guy power he doesn't have. Not anymore.

2024!

Christ. Have a little I don't know, something or other in yourself. He's going to stroke out or heart attack.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DonaldD on February 01, 2021, 07:27:02 PM
Ignoring his power doesn't make it disappear.

He is not in power. He will never be re-elected.  If he tries to run again, he will guarantee a loss for the Republicans worse than this time around.

BUT

There are millions of people who believe.  The Republican party, notwithstanding your oh-so-rational analysis, is giving him power willingly because they think they need his supporters.  After January 6, 45% of Republicans actually supported the attack on Congress.  That bears repeating, because obviously, people don't appreciate it.  You can bet that far more than 45% still supported Trump.  Sure, he might up and die tomorrow.  But so could Kamala Harris or Pete Buttigieg.  I used the word "audience" purposefully, because too many Republicans treat him as a religious or monarchical figure.  This is the Republican party today.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: Grant on February 01, 2021, 07:29:46 PM
So no - she holds much more than just 1/435th of the power in the national legislature.  Until they can buy it back, or until she self-destructs, she and Trump own the soul of the Republican party.

Hyperbole much? 

We're talking about a freshman Congresswoman from Appalachia, Georgia.  Her district includes Rome and Dalton.  She's rolllllllllling in power and prestige.  Do you really think this woman is now in a position to bring to the Trumpian masses what they want?  Remember how upset the Trumpists were in 2016 because John Boehner couldn't deliver them everything they wanted?  That's going to be this lady in four years. 1/435th the power?  I wouldn't even go that far.  She has maybe 1/5000th of the power in the national legislature.  She's nothing.  She's a loudmouthed idiot pawn.  She's less than a pawn.  She's the saltshaker you use to replace a pawn because you lost it and then say that it can't attack due to handicapping.  She's the scout piece in Stratego.  She's a goblin spearman in Warhammer. 

The soul of the Republican Party?  It's not even Trump.  He was just the crown hero for five years.  Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are the dark soul of the Republican party.  Sycophants like McCarthy are only reaching out to Trump because they no longer have daddy and they think he can help them.  He can't.  Smart Republicans are already vying to be the new daddy by being as Trumpy as they can, giving the Trumpy plebs what they want, and it's pretty much backfiring.  Cruz and Hawley basically shot themselves in the foot.  McCarthy will too.  Rubio will eventually. 

In three years they're all going to gather to figure out who's going to be the new daddy.  It most likely won't be Trump.  If he's still alive he's going to probably have some convictions around his neck.  That will be the end.  Your best bet at this point for a Trumpy successor daddy is probably Nikki Haley of all people. 

Every day Trump gets weaker and he and his minion's grasp on the GOP grows weaker.  They're not the soul of anything.  They're dying parasites.  Regardless of how "Trumpy" the next daddy of the GOP will be, they will still not be Trump.  Even turds like Cruz or Rubio or borderlines like Haley are not Trump.  They have no where near the problems, idiocy, corruption, or bat-*censored* craziness. 
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: Aris Katsaris on February 01, 2021, 09:25:29 PM
He is not in power. He will never be re-elected.  If he tries to run again, he will guarantee a loss for the Republicans worse than this time around.

I heard that claim back in 2016 too. That if he won the Republican primary, he'd be certainly soundly defeated by Hillary.

I think you're all being too optimistic in your claims that Trump's done and over with. Nothing I've seen indicates it. Everything to me indicates the Republican party is being purged of non-Trumpists. If he's acquitted, which he likely will be, he'll resume his attack on democracy tenfold.

He'll be the presidential candidate for the Republican party until the day he dies, or the day he wins the presidency again.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DonaldD on February 01, 2021, 10:02:02 PM
Well, it looks like McConnell is pushing back on the loony wing of the party - it took a while, but it's certainly a start: McConnell: Marjorie Taylor Greene's views are a 'cancer' for the GOP (https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/01/politics/mcconnell-marjorie-taylor-greene-cancer-republican-party/index.html).

We'll see where it goes from here.

I think you're all being too optimistic in your claims that Trump's done and over with. Nothing I've seen indicates it. Everything to me indicates the Republican party is being purged of non-Trumpists. If he's acquitted, which he likely will be, he'll resume his attack on democracy tenfold.

He'll be the presidential candidate for the Republican party until the day he dies, or the day he wins the presidency again. 

The difference is, nobody thought he had a chance of winning in 2016.  He's now got 4 years of of history as the president, which was enough to motivate a record number, by over 10 million people, to vote against him in the last election. And nobody is going to make the mistake of assuming he can't win an election, or that it might not be completely awful if he did.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: TheDrake on February 01, 2021, 11:23:19 PM
His birtherism was disreuptive enough before he gained tens of millions more followers, including thousands who think he's worth going to federal prison for. His ability to command the narrative is of course diminished. But he'll "be back in some form" by his own words. Those people organizing idiot flotillas are no less enamored with him than before.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: Aris Katsaris on February 02, 2021, 06:07:31 AM
The difference is, nobody thought he had a chance of winning in 2016.  He's now got 4 years of of history as the president, which was enough to motivate a record number, by over 10 million people, to vote against him in the last election. And nobody is going to make the mistake of assuming he can't win an election, or that it might not be completely awful if he did.

And even with such motivation, Biden only barely managed to win, his win dependent on some 100,000 votes across 5 swing states.

You are once again underestimating Trump, saying that he'll never manage to win, same as was being said about him in 2016.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: DonaldD on February 02, 2021, 07:04:50 AM
This analysis ignores that the country just experienced what happens when he doesn't get his way.  Millions of sane people are fleeing the Republican party and would stay away if Trump ran for election again. His issue is not turning out the base - it's the turnout he drives for the Democrats, and how he's disaffected independents.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: Aris Katsaris on February 02, 2021, 07:53:37 AM
Ah, it's "different" this time. Yeah, okay, you'll never learn. That was the rhetoric in 2016, and that was *again* the rhetoric of 2020, where victory was again supposedly completely assured, for different reasons than before, and yet you again almost nearly lost.

You people keep changing the reasons for why victory is assured, and never learn that it isn't assured. What exact mistakes did you make in your reasoning back then that you're failing to repeat now? Once again you bring up some known data-point of how "oh now the people know, they'll never vote for him", as if that hadn't been the case in 2016 and 2020, and as if they didn't know about him then too. Yes, some sane Republicans left now. And some sane Republicans left in 2016, NOTHING IS DIFFERENT. SAME THING YOU COULD HAVE SAID THEN, YOU'RE JUST SAYING NOW.
 
Let's hope the planet gets lucky and Trump has dropped dead by 2024, because otherwise you Democrats' constant self-assurance of victory will more likely than not bring Trump again to the presidency.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: Grant on February 02, 2021, 08:27:16 AM
Ah, it's "different" this time. Yeah, okay, you'll never learn. That was the rhetoric in 2016, and that was *again* the rhetoric of 2020, where victory was again supposedly completely assured, for different reasons than before, and yet you again almost nearly lost.

I'm going to have to go with Donald on this one.  2016 was a fluke in several different ways.  It was a fluke he was able to win the nomination, which he did only because he was running against some 16 other candidates that split the GOP into too many factions that could not get their crap together to beat him.  So the Republican party did indeed underestimate Trump. 

Then L'Orange won.  That really boosted his popularity because the conventional wisdom was that he couldn't beat Hillary, and Hillary was a deeply unpopular candidate.  So he pulled off the miracle win and that made him the "chosen one". 

Then the media spent 4 years attacking the guy.  Right or wrong, nobody likes the media.  That increased his popularity. 

He became teflon.  Nothing could stick.  Increased popularity. 

But now he's lost, and his popularity is at an all time low.  His disapproval is at an all time high. He probably couldn't win in Alabama.  He couldn't win the Georgia.  People know this now.  It's proven.  People's opinions are not going to change on L'Orange except in one direction.  He's not going to win any new adherents. 

The establishment wing of the Republican party is indeed under fire, but nobody has been purged.  The idea that they are only encourages more moderates to leave the party and leave it at the mercy of Trumpists. 

I appreciate your particular view, Aris.  But how many American voters have you had conversations with over the past month?  How many conservative voters have you talked to? 
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: msquared on February 02, 2021, 08:31:14 AM
Donald and Aris,

As a former Republican, I hope Donald is right, but am afraid Aris will end up being right.  Normally I would agree with Donald that in the past, a 1 term president would be no threat in future runs.  They would normally move into the elder statesmen roll (see Bush and Carter or even Ford).

But Trump seems to be from a different cloth.  His rise in 2016 and heavy support from the base in 2020 worries me.  As Aris points out, many of the conservatives who really dislike Trump had already moved away from him and the party, even in 2016.  So I will continue to support any one who runs against Trump, or a Trump supporter, in the future. 

I know tens of thousands of Republicans have left the party since Jan 6.  The question is will they stay away in 2022 and 2024, or will they cave when it comes down to pulling the lever for a Democrat?  It really is not enough for them to not vote for Trump and Trumpist.  We need them to vote for the people running against them, whether it is for a non Trumpist in the primary or for a Democrat or Independent in the general.  Doing that is effectively 2 votes. One Trump would normally have had and then one for his opponent.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: yossarian22c on February 02, 2021, 08:42:41 AM
But now he's lost, and his popularity is at an all time low.  His disapproval is at an all time high. He probably couldn't win in Alabama.  He couldn't win the Georgia.  People know this now.  It's proven.  People's opinions are not going to change on L'Orange except in one direction.  He's not going to win any new adherents. 

I still think he wins a Republican primary. Particularly if the field is more than 2 people. Which is why I don't understand why Mitch and the wanna be presidents in 2024 don't concoct a scheme to get Trump convicted and banned from the 2024 race.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: Grant on February 02, 2021, 09:19:09 AM
Donald and Aris,

As a former Republican, I hope Donald is right, but am afraid Aris will end up being right.  Normally I would agree with Donald that in the past, a 1 term president would be no threat in future runs.  They would normally move into the elder statesmen roll (see Bush and Carter or even Ford).

I have to agree with this. 

Quote
As Aris points out, many of the conservatives who really dislike Trump had already moved away from him and the party, even in 2016.  So I will continue to support any one who runs against Trump, or a Trump supporter, in the future.

I know tens of thousands of Republicans have left the party since Jan 6.  The question is will they stay away in 2022 and 2024, or will they cave when it comes down to pulling the lever for a Democrat?  It really is not enough for them to not vote for Trump and Trumpist.  We need them to vote for the people running against them, whether it is for a non Trumpist in the primary or for a Democrat or Independent in the general.  Doing that is effectively 2 votes. One Trump would normally have had and then one for his opponent.

I think this is a key, and have admitted that it's a problem.  The ability of trumpism to thrive depends on Republicans who have left the party returning if an establishment Republican runs for the nomination in 2024.  I think it would help to identify possible candidates in 2024. 

Yossarian said:
Quote
I still think he wins a Republican primary. Particularly if the field is more than 2 people. Which is why I don't understand why Mitch and the wanna be presidents in 2024 don't concoct a scheme to get Trump convicted and banned from the 2024 race.

I think the key here is what the Trumpy candidates do if Trump decides to run again.  Right now they're all scared of him and his base.  That can change in 3 years, but no guarantee.  I honestly think Cruz would still run because he wants to be President THAT BAD.  I don't really see any true Trumpist candidates running for President, just Trumpy ones.  The other part is of course how many establishment republicans rejoin the party to support an establishment candidate.  I honestly feel that in open primaries, Trump cannot win.  I feel independents have moved away from him forever.  That leaves him only able to win in closed primaries. 

Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: msquared on February 02, 2021, 09:31:14 AM
I am also surprised that more Repubs in the Senate are not moving to convict him on the impeachment, since then they can go the next step and prevent him from holding public office ever again. The question is who is willing to take the bullet?  There would be blow back from the Trumpist, and some of the current Senators who would vote to convict might loose their seats.  But if a few decided to retire (Portman) and then had sudden attacks of responsibility, you might get enough Senators to convict.

Not that I think it will really happen.  There are no real party leaders right now.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: Grant on February 02, 2021, 09:49:15 AM
I am also surprised that more Repubs in the Senate are not moving to convict him on the impeachment, since then they can go the next step and prevent him from holding public office ever again. The question is who is willing to take the bullet?  There would be blow back from the Trumpist, and some of the current Senators who would vote to convict might loose their seats.  But if a few decided to retire (Portman) and then had sudden attacks of responsibility, you might get enough Senators to convict.

Not that I think it will really happen.  There are no real party leaders right now.

I think some will, but certainly not enough.  More than last time.  I don't know who is giving them advice or how they are reading the base but I think they're reading it wrong.  But I've been wrong before and probably will again. 

I think there are party leaders but they are stuck between trying to please Trump and the base, pleasing just the base, or pleasing nobody.  Pleasing nobody probably isn't the best way to go about things but we'll see how Mitt Romney does in his next senate election.  Cocaine Mitch seems to be trying to thread the needle.  Good politics but Christ and Trumpists might find him lukewarm. 

I think people are constantly overestimating Trump's popularity with the majority of the Republican base.  Yes, there are crazies that believe the man is the second coming of Christ, but they're in the minority.  I tend to believe, from the conversations I've had, and with arguments with Trump supporters on here, that the majority of them just don't like establishment Republicanism or neoconservatism.  I think the majority of them really wish that Trump wasn't Trump.  I'm sure they'd rather have somebody like Pence or Rubio or Haley who were anti-establishment and did Trump type policies, while not being a dirtbag.  They defended Trump while he was still "they're guy", but he's really not "they're guy" anymore.  Somebody else is coming, just like I mentioned before. 
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: yossarian22c on February 02, 2021, 09:58:52 AM
I think people are constantly overestimating Trump's popularity with the majority of the Republican base.  Yes, there are crazies that believe the man is the second coming of Christ, but they're in the minority.  I tend to believe, from the conversations I've had, and with arguments with Trump supporters on here, that the majority of them just don't like establishment Republicanism or neoconservatism.  I think the majority of them really wish that Trump wasn't Trump.  I'm sure they'd rather have somebody like Pence or Rubio or Haley who were anti-establishment and did Trump type policies, while not being a dirtbag.  They defended Trump while he was still "they're guy", but he's really not "they're guy" anymore.  Somebody else is coming, just like I mentioned before.

There isn't room on the stage until Trump exits it. Which is why I'm not sure why Mitch isn't getting all the retiring Republican senators along with the 5 who voted that the trial wasn't unconstitutional to convict the dirtbag and remove him from the playing field. Or the ones who just won re-election. By 2026 I don't think they would have as much to fear if Trump is taken off the board in 2024.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: Grant on February 02, 2021, 10:19:43 AM

There isn't room on the stage until Trump exits it.

Meh.  I disagree.  I don't think there is any evidence to really back up that assertion, though I admit there really isn't any evidence against it either, except that plenty of Republicans have stood against Trump, just not in an election, and they're still around. 
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: yossarian22c on February 02, 2021, 10:39:17 AM

There isn't room on the stage until Trump exits it.

Meh.  I disagree.  I don't think there is any evidence to really back up that assertion, though I admit there really isn't any evidence against it either, except that plenty of Republicans have stood against Trump, just not in an election, and they're still around.

Romney? Anyone else? They are already talking about trying to primary Cheney in Wyoming.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: TheDrake on February 02, 2021, 10:52:27 AM
I also think people need to worry about generational Trumps. I mean, its not exactly the Hand of Oberon, but I could see Don Jr and Ivanka stepping into the legacy.

Quote
nobody likes the media

Point of order, whole bunch of people lap up their media of choice.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: Grant on February 02, 2021, 11:11:59 AM
Romney? Anyone else? They are already talking about trying to primary Cheney in Wyoming.

Susan Collins.  Lisa Murkowski.  Yes, Cheney.  Tom Rice.  Dan Newhouse. Adam Kinzinger.  Anthony Gonzales.  Fred Upton.  Jaime Beutler.  Peter Meijer.  John Katko.  David Valadao. 

Some people who have publicly disagreed:   

Cocaine Mitch. Mike Pence. Ben Sasse. Patrick Toomey. Probably even Rand Paul (barf).  Lindsay Graham when he's heavily intoxicated. 

Those are just the in-office politicians.  Pundits and past office holders:

Dick Cheney.  W Bush.  Jeb Bush.  Carley Fiorina.  Just about everybody else in a cabinet position.  Paul Ryan.

The NR gang: Lowery.  Cooke.  Williamson.  Nordlinger.  French.  Goldberg.  Ponnuru. 
The Weekly Standard Gang:  Kristol.  Hayes. 
George Will.  Krauthammer, though he's dead. Both used to be regulars on Fox. 
The guru-in-chief Yuval Levin.
Plenty of people at Cato Institute, though their libertarian, they still used to vote Republican. 

For every Republican politician that stands against Trump there is probably another one that won't do it publicly because they're scared of the base.  I see that changing in time. 
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: Grant on February 02, 2021, 11:13:05 AM
Point of order, whole bunch of people lap up their media of choice.

Point conceded.  But among the Trumpiest of Trumpists, even Fox is on the outs, hence they love OAN and Newsmax more, hence why Fox is stupidly racing to be more Trumpy. 
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: yossarian22c on February 02, 2021, 11:23:32 AM
Romney? Anyone else? They are already talking about trying to primary Cheney in Wyoming.

Susan Collins.  Lisa Murkowski.  Yes, Cheney.  Tom Rice.  Dan Newhouse. Adam Kinzinger.  Anthony Gonzales.  Fred Upton.  Jaime Beutler.  Peter Meijer.  John Katko.  David Valadao. 

Some people who have publicly disagreed:   

Cocaine Mitch. Mike Pence. Ben Sasse. Patrick Toomey. Probably even Rand Paul (barf).  Lindsay Graham when he's heavily intoxicated. 

Those are just the in-office politicians.  Pundits and past office holders:

Susan Collins.  Lisa Murkowski. Conceded.

But most of them didn't publicly disagree until after Jan 6th. We still have yet to see people in an election cycle disagree with him. And most of them are still being wishy washy about it. Mitch put out some strong statements but then voted to say the Senate had no power to try a president for actions during a lame duck session. He needed some excuse, because he pretty much came out and said Trump was guilty but now he needs a reason to acquit him in a trial. We'll see, Mitch just won his 6 year term. I think if he can get the rest of the votes for a conviction he'll join in. But he's only voting guilty if its a sure thing there will be a conviction. Retiring senators in Ohio and NC are outside chances at getting guilty votes. That gets you to 57. Need another 10. Doesn't seem likely. But strategically it seems reasonable to remove the Trump piece off the board for 2024.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: Grant on February 02, 2021, 12:57:04 PM

But most of them didn't publicly disagree until after Jan 6th. We still have yet to see people in an election cycle disagree with him. And most of them are still being wishy washy about it. Mitch put out some strong statements but then voted to say the Senate had no power to try a president for actions during a lame duck session. He needed some excuse, because he pretty much came out and said Trump was guilty but now he needs a reason to acquit him in a trial. We'll see, Mitch just won his 6 year term. I think if he can get the rest of the votes for a conviction he'll join in. But he's only voting guilty if its a sure thing there will be a conviction. Retiring senators in Ohio and NC are outside chances at getting guilty votes. That gets you to 57. Need another 10. Doesn't seem likely. But strategically it seems reasonable to remove the Trump piece off the board for 2024.

See, I think we're using different yard sticks as to what constitutes "standing against Trump, or Trumpism".  You're pointing out only people that have or will likely vote for impeachment.  That includes all those Republican Representatives I mentioned by the way. 

Personally, I count anyone as standing against Trump if they have publicly called out the President when they thought he was wrong.  That widens the field.  To me, this shows that you can indeed stand against Trump, criticize him publicly, as a Republican politician, and get away with it and stay on the stage.  The list of Republicans who have criticized or stood against Trump on this or that matter is pretty wide.  They're still around.  Some of them by kissing up to Trump and his base (Graham).  Some of them by just keeping their heads low and picking their fights (Sasse) and some of them by just being "good" politicians (Cocaine Mitch).  Some of them are not still around (Ryan, Flake, McCain). I'll remind everyone that they tried to primary Ryan and lost dismally. 

 But as usual your prime examples are McCain and Romney.  They're still standing.  Just today Graham, of all people, backed up Liz Cheney.  As time goes on, you're going to see more and more Republicans try to distance themselves from Trump the person and the QAnon cultists. 

Already a group of 10 Republican Senators are breaking ranks to negotiate with the Biden administration.  This basically creates a Republican caucus in the Senate that circumvents Cocaine Mitch.  Yes, they will be attacked, hard, as traitors by the other Republicans, and in the media by people like Hannity and Limbaugh.  Last time this criticism worked in 2013 on immigration reform.  We'll see if the criticism holds up this time.  Much is going to depend on where Heritage, Cato, and National Review go.  Last time they both came down on the side of the party.  Let's see what happens this time. 
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: TheDeamon on February 02, 2021, 04:59:17 PM
Ignoring his power doesn't make it disappear.

Ignoring Trump is the best solution to Trump. If the press had done that in 2015/2016 rather than breathlessly report on him because of ratings, he wouldn't have gained traction in the primaries, never mind pull off an electoral win.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: TheDeamon on February 02, 2021, 05:02:29 PM
In three years they're all going to gather to figure out who's going to be the new daddy.  It most likely won't be Trump.  If he's still alive he's going to probably have some convictions around his neck.  That will be the end.  Your best bet at this point for a Trumpy successor daddy is probably Nikki Haley of all people.

Depending on where the Democrats go in the next couple of years, 2024 could be a very good Romney year unless a major third party has entered the scene by then.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: TheDeamon on February 02, 2021, 05:06:20 PM
He is not in power. He will never be re-elected.  If he tries to run again, he will guarantee a loss for the Republicans worse than this time around.

I heard that claim back in 2016 too. That if he won the Republican primary, he'd be certainly soundly defeated by Hillary.

I didn't claim that back then. I was saying he'd be likely to win against Hillary because he was such an obviously bad choice.

Quote
I think you're all being too optimistic in your claims that Trump's done and over with. Nothing I've seen indicates it. Everything to me indicates the Republican party is being purged of non-Trumpists. If he's acquitted, which he likely will be, he'll resume his attack on democracy tenfold.

Trump's done, his kids might be another matter. As it is, there are too many things up in the air at present to even begin to predict what 2024 is going to look like politically right now.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: TheDeamon on February 02, 2021, 05:15:58 PM
I am also surprised that more Repubs in the Senate are not moving to convict him on the impeachment, since then they can go the next step and prevent him from holding public office ever again. The question is who is willing to take the bullet?  There would be blow back from the Trumpist, and some of the current Senators who would vote to convict might loose their seats.  But if a few decided to retire (Portman) and then had sudden attacks of responsibility, you might get enough Senators to convict.

Not that I think it will really happen.  There are no real party leaders right now.

Impeachment is pointless, it's entirely political and nothing good can come from it, regardless of the outcome. Having it die on the vine would be preferred, but won't happen.

Let the federal investigators and prosecutors do their jobs and have their day in court, not congress, and convict him there. That will be when justice is getting served. Everything else is theater.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: Aris Katsaris on February 02, 2021, 05:17:09 PM
Trump's done, his kids might be another matter. As it is, there are too many things up in the air at present to even begin to predict what 2024 is going to look like politically right now.

I don't care about his kids one way or another. I'm pretty sure they are bad people, yes, but there are lots of horrible people that can take up the mantle of Trumpism. (If I were to analyze this further I'd say the fact they have the name of Trump may mean that they wouldn't need be so much Trump-like as someone who doesn't share the name, in order to appeal to Donald Trump's voters).

Let the federal investigators and prosecutors do their jobs and have their day in court, not congress, and convict him there. That will be when justice is getting served. Everything else is theater.

Do you feel that about the impeachment process in general, that it's useless? Should there be a constitutional amendment to remove it from existence?
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: Grant on February 02, 2021, 05:21:36 PM
Depending on where the Democrats go in the next couple of years, 2024 could be a very good Romney year unless a major third party has entered the scene by then.

I think the key here is what the Democratic party looks like and does over the next four years.  If there are no disasters, Harris might actually have a shot, though she will probably have to deal with some sort of primary. 

Not sure if Romney wants to run again, and he might not be able to win a general election because he can't bring out the nutters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Michigan. 
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: TheDeamon on February 02, 2021, 05:25:38 PM
I also think people need to worry about generational Trumps. I mean, its not exactly the Hand of Oberon, but I could see Don Jr and Ivanka stepping into the legacy.

Ivanka was a registered Democrat up through 2016, so her political platform is likely to be different from her father's in any number of ways.

Trump Jr is the one to beware of on the political scene from what I've seen. Assuming the Trump organization survives the onslaught that is coming for them in the next 4 years, he'd probably have a decent chance in 2024, it's just a question of if Senior could check his ego enough to allow his son to step forward instead.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: TheDeamon on February 02, 2021, 05:29:20 PM
Let the federal investigators and prosecutors do their jobs and have their day in court, not congress, and convict him there. That will be when justice is getting served. Everything else is theater.
to
Do you feel that about the impeachment process in general, that it's useless? Should there be a constitutional amendment to remove it from existence?

Impeachment exists to remove federal officials from office to ensure they can do no further harm with their position, and in the case of the President, to enable prosecutorial efforts to proceed unimpeded.

Trump isn't in office anymore, so there is no need to remove him from it as he longer holds an office where he can cause further official harms through abuse of office.

Impeachment of Trump at this time is pointless. Impeachment in general serves a purpose, but that purpose is not what they are now trying to use it for.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: LetterRip on February 02, 2021, 05:33:48 PM
Conviction subsequent to impeachment also ensures they can't hold federal office in the future and lose their federal benefits.  So it absolutely something that is not pointless.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: TheDeamon on February 02, 2021, 05:39:53 PM
Conviction subsequent to impeachment also ensures they can't hold federal office in the future and lose their federal benefits.  So it absolutely something that is not pointless.

Trump isn't eligible for retirement as he doesn't have 6 years of Federal Service. And you need to remember that "court of standing" for impeachment matters is the United States Senate, which means the power of Clemency also rests exists in the Senate. So whatever today's Senate enacts, another subsequent Senate can also undo(and that act would be final absent a new trial for a different offense). And the penalty is "no more than" removal of eligibility hold federal office again. There is a Democrat in the House of Representatives right now who was formally impeached and convicted as a Federal Judge, and is currently holding a Federal Elected Office.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: Grant on February 02, 2021, 05:49:45 PM
Quote
Trump's done, his kids might be another matter. As it is, there are too many things up in the air at present to even begin to predict what 2024 is going to look like politically right now.

Well that's no fun. 

Republican Presidential Possibles in 2024. Ranked by liklihood of running and Trumpiness. 

Name                      Liklihood                T-Rating

Mike Pence                 65%                       65%
Ted Cruz                    85%                        75%
Josh Hawley                 75%                      75%
Tom Cotton                 75%                       65%
Nikki Haley                 80%                       60%
Mitt Romney                35%                        0%
Ron DeSantis                70%                      80%
Marco Rubio                 65%                       70%
Ben Sasse                     25%                       30%
Ivanka Trump               20%                       90%
Trump Jr                      30%                       95%
Charlie Baker                 35%                      0%
Cocaine Mitch                  0%                       50%
Lindsay Graham             35%                       60%

*Trumpiness Rating is a combination of how often and how loudly a Republican agrees or disagrees with L'Orange's statements, policy or otherwise, how often they defend his more flavorful actions and statements, and a general survey of negative character traits they might share with the Perfect Caller.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: Wayward Son on February 02, 2021, 06:07:52 PM
Quote
And the penalty is "no more than" removal of eligibility hold federal office again.

Although the penalty of being convinced is removal from office, adding the penalty of barring Trump from ever holding office is easily added, and only needs a majority of the Senate to vote for it.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: Aris Katsaris on February 02, 2021, 06:17:02 PM
Impeachment exists to remove federal officials from office to ensure they can do no further harm with their position, and in the case of the President, to enable prosecutorial efforts to proceed unimpeded.

If that's the only purpose, why does the constitution then also specify the power to disqualify impeached & convicted officials from further holding office?

When the US constitution was being written, the British empire was in the process of impeaching the *former* governor-general of India.

And John Quincy Adams said in 1846 (after leaving office) "I hold myself, so long as I have the breath of life in my body, amenable to impeachment by this House for everything I did during the time I held any public office,"
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: TheDeamon on February 02, 2021, 06:27:08 PM
If that's the only purpose, why does the constitution then also specify the power to disqualify impeached & convicted officials from further holding office?

When the US constitution was being written, the British empire was in the process of impeaching the *former* governor-general of India.

And John Quincy Adams said in 1846 (after leaving office) "I hold myself, so long as I have the breath of life in my body, amenable to impeachment by this House for everything I did during the time I held any public office,"

At that point, I think the provision should be "If already out of office, and convicted in a court of law for wrong-doing while in office, impeachment for the purpose of barring the person from holding office in the future" would be on the table. But honestly, after a criminal conviction, the odds of being able to hold a high public office in the future are pretty slim.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: Grant on February 02, 2021, 06:34:49 PM
But honestly, after a criminal conviction, the odds of being able to hold a high public office in the future are pretty slim.

We've already been down this road.  Probably no chance of a criminal conviction of incitement.  Impeachment is a political trial, not a criminal trial.  You can impeach for behaviors not criminal.  Lying to Congress.  Running around naked in the White House.  Telling the leader of a allied nation to "*censored* off".  Utilizing the office for personal gain.  Leaning on state politicians to overturn election results.  Getting a mob riled up that then goes to storm the capitol. 

Most of these things are not criminal actions.  It's particularly difficult to prosecute the POTUS for criminal actions.  That's what impeachment is for. 

Now, if you're talking about later state convictions for crimes committed before or even during the Presidency, that's different.  Not sure it completely bars someone from running for the Presidency again, though. 
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: msquared on February 02, 2021, 06:43:36 PM
The one good thing from an impeachment is that Trump would never be able to hold office again.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: Aris Katsaris on February 02, 2021, 06:59:06 PM
The one good thing from an impeachment is that Trump would never be able to hold office again.

Besides that, there's also the more general benefit that this sort of action should be punished. If Trump had resigned in acknowledgement of his misdeed, perhaps an impeachment trial wouldn't have been needed. Now it is, because he has suffered no punishment.

If it's not punishable, then it's allowed. Do we want EVERY president to keep doing what Trump did? For that matter what if the next president (or for that matter the current president) has a VP who agrees to just throw out any electoral votes their president doesn't like, while a mob outside cheers President & VP on, as they overturn the election?
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: kidv on February 02, 2021, 07:22:24 PM
https://www.factcheck.org/2021/01/viral-tweet-distorts-facts-on-consequences-of-impeachment/ (https://www.factcheck.org/2021/01/viral-tweet-distorts-facts-on-consequences-of-impeachment/)

I think this is what people are thinking of - potential of removal presidential pension and travel allowance.  Helpful fact check article.

TLDR:  Conviction in the senate, not just impeachment, could potentially result in barring from future office, and removal of pension, staff, and benefits provided by the former presidents act.  Removal of secret service detail falls under a different heading.  Difference of opinion on whether conviction after person has left office will allow for imposition of removal of pension, etc.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: TheDeamon on February 02, 2021, 07:43:22 PM
The one good thing from an impeachment is that Trump would never be able to hold office again.

Here's the problem, and you're trying to have it both ways on this.

If you believe in rule of law, but don't believe you can convict in a court of law, so you'll use a political court to achieve your goals instead.

You don't support the rule of law, you support rule by fiat.

If you believe in the people being able to make their own choices through the use of democratic processes. Then you cannot support using Impeachment as a mechanism to prevent someone from running for office again. That should be a decision made by the voters, not 218 members of the House and 67 members of the Senate.

If you support impeaching Trump simply because you're afraid he could run for office again and win, then you don't support Democracy either.

If you don't think Trump is going to be able to win a Presidential race again in the future, then why are you impeaching him after he left office?
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: msquared on February 02, 2021, 07:54:20 PM
TheDemon

this is not a legal proceeding. This is a political one. Why did the Founding Father's even put impeachment in the Constitution?  Maybe because they feared just what is happening now.

You are holding this to a different standard. This is a civil trial, not criminal. He will not go to jail, he will not pay any fines.  So your comparison to the rule of law is weak.

We can remove someone from the ability to run for office.  The Constitution allows for that. You conservatives keep talking about the constitution, but these things are right from it. This is exactly the type of situation this was set up to deal with.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: Aris Katsaris on February 02, 2021, 08:25:27 PM
If you support impeaching Trump simply because you're afraid he could run for office again and win, then you don't support Democracy either.

If you don't think Trump is going to be able to win a Presidential race again in the future, then why are you impeaching him after he left office?
Your first objection would only be valid, if you are willing to argue that ANY restriction on who is to be presidential candidate is undemocratic. This would include the 2-term limit (Obama not being able to run again is undemocratic), birthplace restrictions (Schwartzenegger not being able to run is undemocratic), age limitations (why only 35+ year olds?) or for that matter citizenship (why shouldn't Pope Francis or the Dalai Lama be allowed to run for the US presidency)

That some people are disqualified because they've been impeached and convicted is no worse than any of the above disqualifications and better than some.

In regards to your question, Trump has shown us that he does NOT respect the outcome of an election,  and he will seek to overthrow democracy if he loses an election. We don't want him to keep trying this next time, until he eventually succeeds in overthrowing democracy by lies and violence. He failed to respect the democratic process, so he must now be barred from it, same as any other dictator or dictator-wannabe.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: Grant on February 02, 2021, 09:16:22 PM

Here's the problem, and you're trying to have it both ways on this.

If you believe in rule of law, but don't believe you can convict in a court of law, so you'll use a political court to achieve your goals instead.

You don't support the rule of law, you support rule by fiat.

Jeez, man.  Impeachment IS THE LAW.  It is part of the highest law.  It's IN THE CONSTITUTION!  It's purpose was described BY THE FRAMERS.  There are all kinds of courts and trials and laws that deal with things outside the the criminal realm.  Impeachment isn't rule by fiat.  IT TAKES 66% OF THE SENATE!  That's the exact opposite of rule by fiat! Jeez. 

Quote
If you believe in the people being able to make their own choices through the use of democratic processes. Then you cannot support using Impeachment as a mechanism to prevent someone from running for office again. That should be a decision made by the voters, not 218 members of the House and 67 members of the Senate.

The whole constitution.  The whole government.  Is built upon the bedrock of the idea of protecting individuals from the democratic process of mob rule, while still having an effective and functional government.  To get there, you have to start and the unavoidable premise that people are stupid, and that a whole bunch of people can be stupid at the same time.  That was the whole problem of democracy.  That was the problem to solve.  That's why the POTUS was never supposed to be elected by popular vote.  That's why there was always supposed to be a bicameral legislature with an upper house that originally was not appointed by the people.  That's why separation of powers and checks and balances.  The Senate REPRESENTS the people of the states.  If they decided that somebody should be barred from further political office, then they are doing what they were appointed by the people to do!  That's their job

Quote
If you support impeaching Trump simply because you're afraid he could run for office again and win, then you don't support Democracy either.

Pish posh!  I guess that makes me a supporter of Republicanism.  You know, representative government.  I suppose that doesn't count as democracy anymore.  It's like I'm taking crazy pills. I'm in bizzaro world. 

Quote
If you don't think Trump is going to be able to win a Presidential race again in the future, then why are you impeaching him after he left office?

Because it's justice.  I don't throw a bank robber in jail after he got both his legs amputated from a car wreck he sustained in his getaway because I'm worried about him robbing more banks.  I'm doing it because it's just. 

Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: TheDrake on February 02, 2021, 10:34:54 PM
That's like saying you don't support democracy if you don't let Schwarzenegger run for office. There are rules, they involve conduct, competency, and danger to the country. Is the 25th amendment allowing the removal of a President by the cabinet a violation of democracy? This is not Nam, there are rules.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: NobleHunter on February 03, 2021, 09:35:51 AM
The other problem is saying "just convict him in the courts" is that what is impeachable is not necessarily illegal. Barring someone from further public office for speech made while President is a much different thing than arresting them for speech made while President. Especially if they are prosecuted as if they were just a private citizen. The President has to be held to a higher standard than private citizens and the courts can't be the place to enforce that standard.

As nice as it would be to see Trump go to prison, I'm not sure there's evidence of sufficiently criminal activity.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: msquared on February 03, 2021, 10:13:27 AM
I guess his one defense would be to finally supply all of the evidence he has of fraud in the 4-5 states he has claimed massive voter fraud in. But since that didn't happen, he has no defense.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: rightleft22 on February 03, 2021, 10:30:48 AM
I guess his one defense would be to finally supply all of the evidence he has of fraud in the 4-5 states he has claimed massive voter fraud in. But since that didn't happen, he has no defense.

But its the lack of evidence that is evidence of fraud! Ergo case closed. Ergo is legalese like language so my reasoning is unassailable, everyone says so. Those that don't are sad. Ok that might imply that not everyone says so... but... squirrel

The DNC, which can't stop tripping over there own dicks at every opportunity, are so devilishly clever...
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: Grant on February 04, 2021, 09:58:00 AM
Liz Cheney won the vote to keep her leadership position, 146 to 61.  30% of the House Republicans voted to remove her.  70% voted against.  It probably helped that the voting was done by secret ballot.

McCarthy has meanwhile stated that he will not be removing Greene from the Education and Labor Committee. 

Cue Marty Haugen's "All Are Welcome". 

The primary message coming from McCarthy?  Staying united against the Democrats.  Underlying message?  Trump is done and over.  Turn the page. 
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: Grant on February 05, 2021, 01:32:31 PM
RINO Deep State Traitor Ben Sasse shows his true elitist tuna tartar eating wine swilling colors when the righteous Republican Party of Nebraska threatens to justly censure him:

Quote
Message to Nebraska GOP State Central Committee
Hey Guys. I want to talk to the members of the state central committee.

I’ve heard from many of you in the days since the attack on the Capitol -threatening another censure…for what I said about the president’s lies after the election.

As a friend and fellow Republican, I wanna shoot straight: I'm not gonna spend any time trying to talk you out of another censure.
I listen to Nebraskans every day, and very few of them are as angry about life as some of the people on this Committee - not all of you, but a lot. Political addicts don’t represent most Nebraska conservatives.

When Melissa and I first ran, back in 2014, we spoke with hundreds of thousands across this gorgeous state. And we promised to speak out when our leaders – not just Democrats, but any leader in either party -crossed the line. We pledged to put the Constitution ahead of party politics. You gave me standing ovations.

My Election Night speech – the first time I ever ran for or got elected to anything – was a simple promise that I'd “always vote my conscience, even if it might be against the stream.” You cheered.

But many of the same party officials who applauded in '14, cussed me out in '16 when I refused to vote for Candidate Trump; and again when I declined to serve on his reelection committee in '19; and again when I didn't vote for his reelection in '20.

Now, many of you are hacked off that I condemned his lies that led to a riot.

Let's be clear: the anger in this state party has never been about me violating principle or abandoning conservative policy -- I'm one of the most conservative voters in the Senate -- the anger's always been simply about me not bending the knee to...one guy.
But my disagreements with President Trump have never been personal -they've always been about my genuine affection for the Constitutional order, something every American regardless of party should share.

January 6th is gonna leave a scar. For 220 years, one of the most beautiful things about America has been our peaceful transfer of power. But what Americans saw three weeks ago was ugly -shameful mob violence to disrupt a constitutionally-mandated meeting of Congress to affirm that peaceful transfer of power.

It happened because the president lied to you. He lied about the election results for 60 days, despite losing 60 straight court challenges – many handed down by wonderful Trump-appointed judges. He lied by saying that the vice president could violate his Constitutional oath and just declare a new winner. He then riled a mob that attacked the Capitol – many chanting “Hang Pence.”

If that president were a Democrat, we both know how you’d respond. But, because he had “Republican” behind his name, you're defending him.

Something has definitely changed over the last four years…but it's not me:
-Personality cults aren’t conservative.
-Conspiracy theories aren’t conservative.
-Lying that an election has been stolen isn’t conservative.
-Acting like politics is a religion isn’t conservative.

I still believe every word from the campaign trail. What makes America great isn't power politics; it's what happens in the communities where we raise our kids.

Happily, most Nebraskans believe that too. I think that’s why Nebraskans just gave our campaign tens of thousands more votes than President Trump in our state. It’s why our campaign just set all-time vote count records in both the primary and general elections – despite being primaried last year for not being Trumpy – all-time most votes for any candidate in Nebraska history. And look at Omaha, which he lost by a lot – we won handily. Why? I think the reason’s simple: Nebraskans aren’t rage addicts. And that’s good.

You are welcome to censure me again – but let’s be clear about why: It’s because I still believe (as you used to) that politics is not about the weird worship of one dude.

The party could purge Trump-skeptics, but I'd like to convince you that not only is this “civic cancer” for the nation, but it's also terrible for our Party.

But either way, I'm gonna keep doing what I promised.

We still agree on some big things — rule of law, Constitutionalism, limited government, unlimited human potential, extending the American dream to more of our brothers and sisters – we can lead again....but only if our party is willing to change.
In just one term, the GOP has lost the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. That hasn’t happened since Herbert Hoover’s drubbing in 1932.

We’re gonna have to choose between conservatism and madness, between just railing about who we’re mad at, versus actually trying to persuade rising generations of Americans again.

That’s where I'm focused. And I sincerely hope that many of you will join in celebrating these big, worthy causes for freedom.
I know I won’t always get it right; I make a bunch of mistakes.

But I’m always gonna work hard for Nebraskans and tell you the truth.
Thanks for listening.

Have no fear.  Sasse will be censured.  Then the chief detective of the Senate will present the evidence that Sasse buys Hondas.  Then he will be imprisoned by the Dark Umbra Cell.  I know this because I have Secret Squirrel Clearance. 
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: msquared on February 05, 2021, 01:53:56 PM
I have a 3 hour video on my private Yooo-Tube channel that proves that Grant = Q.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: TheDrake on February 05, 2021, 02:41:02 PM
WE ARE Q. You will be assimilated!
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: msquared on February 17, 2021, 08:09:12 PM
The entire Texas Republican machine trying to blame renewables and the Green New Deal for their power outages.

What a bunch of morons.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: TheDrake on February 17, 2021, 08:20:58 PM
I'm just surprised they aren't blaming emissions standards for the major car crashes by pointing out that some of the vehicles involved were electric.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: msquared on February 18, 2021, 04:12:32 PM
Ted Cruz says his daughter is to blame for his trip to Cancun, while Texan's freeze to death.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: rightleft22 on February 18, 2021, 06:22:43 PM
Ted Cruz says his daughter is to blame for his trip to Cancun, while Texan's freeze to death.

Never take responsibility a man of strong moral principles.   
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: TheDrake on February 18, 2021, 09:10:15 PM
Eh, I'm not sure the politicians making a big show of helping are much better. Plus, I'd just as soon not have Cruz around.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: yossarian22c on February 18, 2021, 11:49:17 PM
Eh, I'm not sure the politicians making a big show of helping are much better. Plus, I'd just as soon not have Cruz around.

Agree. This isn’t even close to top 5 crappy things Cruz has done just this calendar year. I get the optics are bad but not much a senator can do to get the power back on.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: LetterRip on February 19, 2021, 12:08:38 AM
I've always hated criticisms based on optics.  There isn't anything he can do.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: oldbrian on February 19, 2021, 09:06:12 AM
I saw it on facebook, so take it with an entire block of salt:

Some comedian made a joke about conditions being bad through government mis-management, so Cruz took his family across the border.

And Dan Rather tweeted that dunking on Cruz is like bragging about dunking on a 3 foot hoop.

I remember Rather trying to be cool and funny during a presidential race back in the early 2000s(?). and mainly failing.  Apparently retirement has given him the free time to hone his material. :)
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: rightleft22 on February 19, 2021, 09:19:51 AM
Eh, I'm not sure the politicians making a big show of helping are much better. Plus, I'd just as soon not have Cruz around.

Agree. This isn’t even close to top 5 crappy things Cruz has done just this calendar year. I get the optics are bad but not much a senator can do to get the power back on.

Yet how does such a person maintain his base of support???
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: kidv on February 19, 2021, 10:36:08 AM
[urlhttps://mobile.twitter.com/BFriedmanDC/status/1362598445157150720][/url]

"Beto O'Rourke organized 300,000 volunteer phone calls today to help senior citizens in Texas. AOC raised $1 million for relief efforts. Meanwhile, Ted Cruz is doing a media tour explaining why he flew to Cancun. What an amazing, historic piece of **** that guy is."

[https://mobile.twitter.com/WillBrockman2/status/1362620028999319556 (https://mobile.twitter.com/WillBrockman2/status/1362620028999319556)

"The fact that Ted couldn’t conceive of doing what a conscientious public servant would do in this situation is precisely why his supporters and his detractors were unanimous in believing that his presence wouldn’t make a difference."



Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: TheDrake on February 19, 2021, 12:35:28 PM
I think Beto probably just slapped his name on things. Were those calls not going to be made if Beto went to Cancun? Did he really create a volunteer phone bank out of whole cloth, or did he just retweet about it? Did he use his connections to assemble the list of people to call? Or is it about as substantial as Trump renting out his name to put on a building that already existed and had nothing to do with him operationally?

The AOC thing is nice, but do you really think Ted with his base of support was going to accomplish that? Disaster donations are awfully close to recognizing the common good, which leads to SOCIALISM!

Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: kidv on February 19, 2021, 01:34:19 PM
]https://mobile.twitter.com/BFriedmanDC/status/1362598445157150720] (https://mobile.twitter.com/BFriedmanDC/status/1362598445157150720)

"Beto O'Rourke organized 300,000 volunteer phone calls today to help senior citizens in Texas. AOC raised $1 million for relief efforts. Meanwhile, Ted Cruz is doing a media tour explaining why he flew to Cancun. What an amazing, historic piece of **** that guy is."

[https://mobile.twitter.com/WillBrockman2/status/1362620028999319556 (https://mobile.twitter.com/WillBrockman2/status/1362620028999319556)

"The fact that Ted couldn’t conceive of doing what a conscientious public servant would do in this situation is precisely why his supporters and his detractors were unanimous in believing that his presence wouldn’t make a difference."

I quote to activate the link above.  It seems like Beto used his phone bank of volunteers to contact people to verify need.  Beto reported on progress and was soliciting additional volunteers for subsequent days.

These are simply examples of things that could be done by people that are looking for ways to help.  Or ways to be a leader in a time of crisis.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: TheDrake on February 19, 2021, 01:53:59 PM
Window dressing does count. It can inspire others. Other times it can demoralize - Cruz is better off going to Cancun than showing up at the local HEB and throwing paper towels.

I had to look up other articles about Beto, twitter is blocked as a social media site. In general, twitter doesn't make for great sourcing as it is. Also, nothing Beto did couldn't also have been done in Cancun. So the two are entirely separable issues. Can you do something to help people, versus can you do something to make yourself look good while not actually doing much?

I wish Ted's policy actions got half as much traction as his irrelevant Cancun trip.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: msquared on February 19, 2021, 03:48:30 PM
Donald Trump Jr jumps in on the Cruz issue.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-jr-hits-democrat-193557095.html

Says people are ignoring the incompetence of the Democratic Governor of Texas.

You think after all Texas did to try and over turn the election on Trump's behalf, Don would know more of who these people are.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: LetterRip on February 19, 2021, 04:35:34 PM
This is a common Republican tactic to claim incompetent and criminal Republican politicians are Democrats.
Title: Re: The Party of personal responsibility?
Post by: TheDrake on February 20, 2021, 05:05:56 PM
Obviously I know Abbot is a Republican, but it is irresponsible to post even sarcastically about the Democrat governor of Texas with zero context.