What happens to the Republican Party now? (3 Viewers)

[MT15]

This election nonsense by Trump may end up splitting up the Republican Party. I just don’t see how the one third (?) who are principled conservatives can stay in the same party with Trump sycophants who are willing to sign onto the TX Supreme Court case.

We also saw the alt right types chanting “destroy the GOP” in Washington today because they didn’t keep Trump in power. I think the Q types will also hold the same ill will toward the traditional Republican Party. In fact its quite possible that all the voters who are really in a Trump personality cult will also blame the GOP for his loss. It’s only a matter of time IMO before Trump himself gets around to blaming the GOP.

There is some discussion of this on Twitter. What do you all think?

 

[V Chip]

they voted ON Election Day.
I LIKE that!!!!
I AM IN FAVOR of EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE NATION who HAS A CHALLENGE in their life....ALL OF OUR CITIZENS WHO HAVE A CHALLENGE OF ANY KIND....THEY SHOULD BY ALL MEANS VOTE BY MAIL IF THEY NEED TO!

The odd thing is, until the Democrats organized to get out the vote with early voting, vote by mail, dropboxes, etc., the Republicans were the ones who *favored* those types of votes and in fact pushed for and created laws expanding their access. The one time the Democrats proved they could use it to *their* advantage, the Republicans did a 180 and now are trying to restrict voting access in the majority of US States.

 

[zztop]

The odd thing is, until the Democrats organized to get out the vote with early voting, vote by mail, dropboxes, etc., the Republicans were the ones who *favored* those types of votes and in fact pushed for and created laws expanding their access. The one time the Democrats proved they could use it to *their* advantage, the Republicans did a 180 and now are trying to restrict voting access in the majority of US States.

yeah, funny how in some states there was bipartisan support to expand early mail-in voting... until trump lost. I guess it is just a coincidence how there have been over a dozen laws by republican controlled states to suppress voting since trump lost the election

edit: according to https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-december-2021
it is now 34 laws in 19 states

Between January 1 and December 7, at least 19 states passed 34 laws restricting access to voting. More than 440 bills with provisions that restrict voting access have been introduced in 49 states in the 2021 legislative sessions. These numbers are extraordinary: state legislatures enacted far more restrictive voting laws in 2021 than in any year since the Brennan Center began tracking voting legislation in 2011. More than a third of all restrictive voting laws enacted since then were passed this year. And in a new trend this year, legislators introduced bills to allow partisan actors to interfere with election processes or even reject election results entirely.

 

[FullMonte]

yeah, funny how in some states there was bipartisan support to expand early mail-in voting... until trump lost. I guess it is just a coincidence how there have been over a dozen laws by republican controlled states to suppress voting since trump lost the election

edit: according to https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-december-2021
it is now 34 laws in 19 states

Between January 1 and December 7, at least 19 states passed 34 laws restricting access to voting. More than 440 bills with provisions that restrict voting access have been introduced in 49 states in the 2021 legislative sessions. These numbers are extraordinary: state legislatures enacted far more restrictive voting laws in 2021 than in any year since the Brennan Center began tracking voting legislation in 2011. More than a third of all restrictive voting laws enacted since then were passed this year. And in a new trend this year, legislators introduced bills to allow partisan actors to interfere with election processes or even reject election results entirely.

and...how are those laws working out? For the past year and a half...what have we heard? ONLY SOMEONE WITH A VALID ID SHOULD BE ABLE TO VOTE, PERIOD!!! And, what happened in Texas? Thousands of ballots were rejected...why? Because they contained a valid ID number.

You see, Texas' new law states that when you submit a mail in ballot, you must include either your state issued ID number or part of your social security number, which it appears that everyone did. But, here's the catch. The number you include on your ballot must be the one you used when you registered to vote. So, if you put your state issued driver's license number (which can be validated by the state, and prove your identity), your ballot would be rejected if you provided your social security number when you registered to vote.

The net result? In the 2020 election, one report was that 39 ballots were rejected due to identification issues. In the current primary, the number of ballots that were rejected due to identification issues was over 20,000. I have yet to hear ANYONE explain a valid reason why a person who provided a valid driver's license number (or social security number) should have their ballot rejected.

It's my opinion that the state saw a significant increase in mail in ballots in 2020, and that the overwhelming majority of the mail in ballots were from democrats, so they added something that would make it more likely that those democrat ballots would be rejected.

 

[SteveSBrickNJ]

In the middle of my recent post....in all capital letters I said:
"I AM IN FAVOR OF EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE NATION WHO HAS A CHALLENGE in their life...ALL OF OUR CITIZENS WHO HAVE A CHALLENGE OF ANY KIND......THEY SHOULD BY ALL MEANS VOTE BY MAIL IF THEY NEED TO!" That's what I...Steve...said!
*
So, you really annoy me cuddlemonkey with the way you frame your question to me. Here's you: "Steve...choose my(cuddlemonkey's) door #1 or cuddlemonkey's door #2
I'll(cuddlemonkey) ignore the fact that you already said you want all people to be able to vote....no person who needs to vote by mail under the Steve plan will denied that opportunity. I'll just ignore that you said that Steve..... and..... I'll just frame my question in such a way as to try to make you look bad. "
You really annoy me cuddlemonkey. I not proposing to stop anyone from voting by mail.
EVERYONE who NEEDS "ballot box access" is please welcome to have it.
I'm not wishing to stop anyone. So exasperating!
I need another break from this forum thanks to cuddlemonkey.
Maybe I'll come back on Friday.

Why do you not understand my use of the English language?
I've answered your question.
I care about the citizens of the country.
They should all have their precious right to vote in advance or whatever is most convenient for them.
That is the important thing.
*
I ALSO expressed my desire for healthy adults with no issues to vote on election day.
This is just a personal preference. I said that.
So my post is about personal preference.....and the answer to your question is the ability to vote with ease is the important thing.
Unbelievable that I have to address this to you yet agin.
......and its very disappointing that I seem to be alone....no supporters. I guess cuddemonkey was totally in the right and I was clueless.

 

[MT15]

Steve, maybe it’s because people cannot figure out what you are actually saying. When you say it’s your preference that ‘healthy adults with no issues’ vote in person, and then you say things like “they should all have their precious right to vote in advance” I am confused.

You seemed to be saying earlier that you would like to limit the people who can vote early or by mail to certain categories only. Maybe we got the wrong idea - but it was stated (yelled) in ALL CAPS that healthy people with no limitations should vote in person. So even though you have qualified it, forgive us for being confused.

My response would be just let people figure out how they want to vote, it’s not up to politicians to pick and choose who can vote by what method. And it seems you are on board with that, so it’s all good!

 

[Optimus Prime]

Interesting article
================
The technical term is "asymmetric polarization."

It means that one political party is getting more partisan (or polarized) than the other -- or that one side is moving closer to its ideological pole than the other.

It's what has happened in Congress over the last five decades, according to a report from the Pew Research Center examining roll call votes of lawmakers beginning in the early 1970s.

Using a system that ranks members of Congress from -1 (most liberal) to 1 (most conservative), Pew found that the average Senate Democrat (-.06) and House Democrat (-.07) have grown only marginally more liberal between the 1970s and today.

The average Senate (+.28) and House Republican (+.25) have, however, grown significantly more conservative over that same period.

As Pew's Drew DeSilver wrote of the findings: "Both parties have moved further away from the ideological center since the early 1970s. Democrats on average have become somewhat more liberal, while Republicans on average have become much more conservative."

This is not a new trend. As far back as 2012, political scientists Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann identified the drastic rightward lurch of the Republican Party in Congress.

The duo wrote at the time:

"The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

"When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country's challenges."

And that was written a decade ago -- long before there was a President Donald Trump, a Sen. Josh Hawley or a Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene!.............

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[Taurus]

Interesting article
================
The technical term is "asymmetric polarization."

It means that one political party is getting more partisan (or polarized) than the other -- or that one side is moving closer to its ideological pole than the other.

It's what has happened in Congress over the last five decades, according to a report from the Pew Research Center examining roll call votes of lawmakers beginning in the early 1970s.

Using a system that ranks members of Congress from -1 (most liberal) to 1 (most conservative), Pew found that the average Senate Democrat (-.06) and House Democrat (-.07) have grown only marginally more liberal between the 1970s and today.

The average Senate (+.28) and House Republican (+.25) have, however, grown significantly more conservative over that same period.

As Pew's Drew DeSilver wrote of the findings: "Both parties have moved further away from the ideological center since the early 1970s. Democrats on average have become somewhat more liberal, while Republicans on average have become much more conservative."

This is not a new trend. As far back as 2012, political scientists Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann identified the drastic rightward lurch of the Republican Party in Congress.

The duo wrote at the time:

"The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

"When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country's challenges."

And that was written a decade ago -- long before there was a President Donald Trump, a Sen. Josh Hawley or a Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene!.............

MSN

www.msn.com

Well, yeah. But in terms of gaining power, IT WORKS.

 

[MT15]

Well, yeah. But in terms of gaining power, IT WORKS.

It has worked to a limited extent so far. The real consequences are the courts, but even so we have had some surprising social movements in the past 10 years.

But Obama was elected president, 2x, and he briefly had the House. Once Trump was elected, the Rs lost the House, then the presidency and the Senate.

The only thing they have to cling to is that we have historically changed the House during the off year elections. I don’t buy the idea they are selling that they will dominate in the mid-terms, at least not yet. It’s too early to tell. Biden is being severely tested by world events and is doing a good job so far. At some point popular wisdom was that Obama could never be re-elected, so I’m not going to concede any sort of huge victory for Rs right now.

 

[MT15]

So, Madison Cawthorne, who just days ago called Zekensky a thug and parroted Russian propaganda about Nazis in Ukraine, is now criticizing Biden for not giving enough lethal aid to Ukraine. And other Rs are following suit.

 

[MT15]

This is the guy who had a convention recently at which two R members of Congress spoke.

 

[Taurus]

So, Madison Cawthorne, who just days ago called Zekensky a thug and parroted Russian propaganda about Nazis in Ukraine, is now criticizing Biden for not giving enough lethal aid to Ukraine. And other Rs are following suit.

Using the word 'trap' implies lack of intent.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

Why does Putin have superfans among the US right wing?

The Russian leader is an autocrat with a homophobic and misogynistic worldview. No wonder he is admired by so many Republicans, writes Arwa Mahdawi

www.theguardian.com

 

[MT15]

Using the word 'trap' implies lack of intent.

Good point.

 

[insidejob]

The company that makes botox in Russia is suspending operations. Boy, Putin's face is about to sag off. Couldn't happen to a better person.

 

[zztop]

This could go in the other topic as well, but lets play: "tell me you are a russian asset without telling me you're a russian asset"

The House of Representatives has voted 424-8 to end normal trade relations with Russia and Belarus.

Eight Republicans voted no: Andy Biggs, Dan Bishop, Lauren Boebert, Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Glenn Grothman, Thomas Massie and Chip Roy.

 

[MT15]

These are the top two R candidates for US Senator in Ohio:





They may as well put on the outfits and wrestle. This party is sick.

 

[zztop]

^ another example why we need a facepalm emoji reaction, b/c my "sad" doesn't quite convey what I am feeling

 

[Taurus]

These are the top two R candidates for US Senator in Ohio:





They may as well put on the outfits and wrestle. This party is sick.

Republican voters *love* that shirte.