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?

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

want a spoiler alert? They won't vote against him.

 

[MT15]

want a spoiler alert? They won't vote against him.

Yes, I know. But they will have to own it. I already sent a quick email to my idiot representative just to let him know I was paying attention to his vote. And if he decides to keep him, I will know he is putting party loyalties ahead of the oath of office he took. I asked him to explain his vote to me. I like to send him emails so he doesn’t think he’s fooling anyone.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Yes, I know. But they will have to own it. I already sent a quick email to my idiot representative just to let him know I was paying attention to his vote. And if he decides to keep him, I will know he is putting party loyalties ahead of the oath of office he took. I asked him to explain his vote to me. I like to send him emails so he doesn’t think he’s fooling anyone.

Have you ever gotten a response?

 

[MT15]

Have you ever gotten a response?

Sometimes I do. We shall see if he has enough interns to get a response out.

 

[Saintamaniac]

This will be interesting. They will be forced to vote to keep a man with 13 or so criminal indictments.

This is something that used to matter maybe 7 or 8 years ago. If everyone already knows that you have no shame, what does it matter that you publicly show that you have no shame, AGAIN?

 

[SamAndreas]

Yeah, well, I won't be comfortable until a deal is done. I just don't trust those idiots much these days.

I'm comfy. I know something you might not know. If you feel like reading, read this:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/URLs_Cited/OT2017/16-476/16-476-3.pdf

What I'm talking about and that paper is talking about as taken from the first part of the paper's abstract is:

"ABSTRACT — The power of judicial review is all too often regarded as something akin to an executive veto. When a court declares a statute unconstitutional or enjoins its enforcement, the disapproved law is described as having been “struck down” or rendered “void” — as if the judiciary holds a veto-like power to cancel or revoke a duly enacted statute. And the political branches carry on as though the court’s decision has erased the statute from the law books. But the federal judiciary has no authority to alter or annul a statute. The power of judicial review is more limited: It allows a court to decline to enforce a statute, and to enjoin the executive from enforcing that statute. But the judicially disapproved statute continues to exist as a law until it is repealed by the legislature that enacted it, even as it goes unenforced by the judiciary or the executive. And it is always possible that a future court might overrule the decision that declared the statute unconstitutional, thereby liberating the executive to resume enforcing the statute against anyone who has violated it. Judicial review is not a power to suspend or “strike down” legislation; it is a judicially imposed non-enforcement policy that lasts only as long as the courts adhere to the constitutional objections that persuaded them to thwart the statute’s enforcement."

An executive can decide to not enforce a statute just as the courts can. The debt limit is after all a statute.

Now of course the Supreme court can after a President decides to not enforce a statute, can come back and say "not so fast" and enjoin the President to enforce that statute after all.

But would they?

The statute in question appears on it's face to violate the Constitution. Since Congress is who spends money no administration or court has ever taken it up before. It's been easier and more reasonable to let them deal with that which is their primary job.

However all it takes is one Congress that is so messed up it will not sort out what it's one hand is doing from what it's other hand is doing, such that they're in conflict with what is in essence themselves, thus to create a situation where an administration has to insist on taking that dicey question up.

Do you think the Supreme Court is going to rule that the United States must default on it's debit when the Constitution clearly says it must not do that?

I think Biden is just biding his time. He'll act when he simply has to act, and that restraint to the bitter end is what will defend him when that question comes before the court. Biden must act with unusual restraint, but if he has to act he must act.

I think the chances are nil that the Supreme Court will go down that rabbit hole for a Congress who has mismanaging the US this badly, and who have had every opportunity afforded to them to correct their errant path.

I don't think Congress will take it that far. They're cutting off their nose to spite their face.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

Putin has never invadaed Europe...lol

 

[DaveXA]

Putin has never invadaed Europe...lol

Idiot doing idiot things.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Putin has never invadaed Europe...lol

I'm so torn as to what reaction icon to select. Dammit Andrus...

 

[SamAndreas]

I'm comfy. I know something you might not know. If you feel like reading, read this:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/URLs_Cited/OT2017/16-476/16-476-3.pdf

What I'm talking about and that paper is talking about as taken from the first part of the paper's abstract is:

"ABSTRACT — The power of judicial review is all too often regarded as something akin to an executive veto. When a court declares a statute unconstitutional or enjoins its enforcement, the disapproved law is described as having been “struck down” or rendered “void” — as if the judiciary holds a veto-like power to cancel or revoke a duly enacted statute. And the political branches carry on as though the court’s decision has erased the statute from the law books. But the federal judiciary has no authority to alter or annul a statute. The power of judicial review is more limited: It allows a court to decline to enforce a statute, and to enjoin the executive from enforcing that statute. But the judicially disapproved statute continues to exist as a law until it is repealed by the legislature that enacted it, even as it goes unenforced by the judiciary or the executive. And it is always possible that a future court might overrule the decision that declared the statute unconstitutional, thereby liberating the executive to resume enforcing the statute against anyone who has violated it. Judicial review is not a power to suspend or “strike down” legislation; it is a judicially imposed non-enforcement policy that lasts only as long as the courts adhere to the constitutional objections that persuaded them to thwart the statute’s enforcement."

An executive can decide to not enforce a statute just as the courts can. The debt limit is after all a statute.

Now of course the Supreme court can after a President decides to not enforce a statute, can come back and say "not so fast" and enjoin the President to enforce that statute after all.

But would they?

The statute in question appears on it's face to violate the Constitution. Since Congress is who spends money no administration or court has ever taken it up before. It's been easier and more reasonable to let them deal with that which is their primary job.

However all it takes is one Congress that is so messed up it will not sort out what it's one hand is doing from what it's other hand is doing, such that they're in conflict with what is in essence themselves, thus to create a situation where an administration has to insist on taking that dicey question up.

Do you think the Supreme Court is going to rule that the United States must default on it's debit when the Constitution clearly says it must not do that?

I think Biden is just biding his time. He'll act when he simply has to act, and that restraint to the bitter end is what will defend him when that question comes before the court. Biden must act with unusual restraint, but if he has to act he must act.

I think the chances are nil that the Supreme Court will go down that rabbit hole for a Congress who has mismanaging the US this badly, and who have had every opportunity afforded to them to correct their errant path.

I don't think Congress will take it that far. They're cutting off their nose to spite their face.

I'm quoting myself because I found a Tweet where Senator Whitehouse is in essence making the same argument I made in this post.

 

[Optimus Prime]

this could have gone in a few threads
==================

The young white nationalist across the street from the drag show starts to panic. He and his friend — two white men, probably in their early twenties, with baseball hats, and faces masked by the kind of stretchy gaiters middle-aged guys wear on fishing boats — hold a big sign with bold, black letters: “Pedophiles get the rope.” But their expressions change as they’re suddenly surrounded by figures dressed in all-black with combat boots, military helmets, balaclavas, body armor, and tinted goggles, their gloved hands balled into fists.

It’s a Monday afternoon in Fort Worth, Texas, and the group in all black are mostly members of the Elm Fork chapter of the John Brown Gun Club (JBGC), a left-wing anti-fascist organization created to level the playing field with right-wing militias that show up armed to protests around the country.

The black-clad figures are up in the white nationalist’s face. He shouts, they shout. Suddenly, the white nationalist’s mirrored sunglasses fly off his head in a glittering arc, landing in the middle of the street. “That’s assault!” the white nationalist shrieks, backing away. His hand fumbles under his shirt. I notice for the first time the outline of a compact pistol in a concealed holster in the front of his waistband.

“Get your hand off your gun!” someone from the Elm Fork crew shouts. I slide a few steps to my left — out of the line of fire. The white nationalist backs up as he screams slurs, hand still on his gun. The Elm Fork crew’s rifles are back in their cars.

I look around to see if anyone else from the growing crowd of protesters is reaching for weapons. In the parking lot nearby, there’s someone in black on a motorcycle wearing crisscrossed bandoliers of shotgun shells across their chest, and a gun strapped to their saddle. There’s another guy in a bucket hat with a sign that reads “Kink and kids don’t mix”; a far-right livestreamer; and about half a dozen young men from the New Columbia Movement, a far-right Christian nationalist group.

Across the street, a long line of people wait to enter the drag show inside the music venue Tulips FTW. In spite of the tension building all around them, they cheer, dance, and blow soap bubbles into the air.

The event is a weekly all-ages trivia night hosted by a drag queen named Salem Moon. It’s clear the staff has been through this chaos before. Two bouncers wearing black T-shirts that say “Welcome home” pat down each attendee and check every bag.

If you’re looking for the front line in America’s sprawling culture war, this is it. For the past year, the conservative movement has zeroed in on the LGBTQ community, specifically targeting trans people and drag queens, who they claim “groom” children into a life of abuse and sin. This accusation has no statistical basis or grounds in reality, but what it does have is the ability to make people really, really mad — and for the worst elements of the far right, that’s an opportunity.

Some white nationalists and virulent evangelicals have seized upon trans panic to mobilize new recruits, bolstered by the issue’s embrace by mainstream politicians like Ron DeSantis. And where the far right goes, so do their guns: Militias, gangs, and other groups have been open-carrying firearms at public protests, showing up to drag events and government buildings toting weapons of war. Last year, The New York Times analyzed more than 700 armed demonstrations across the country, and found that the right wing was responsible for bringing heat to 77 percent of them, protesting everything from LGBTQ rights to Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election.

But the far right aren’t the only ones showing up armed. Across the country, marginalized individuals are forming groups like the John Brown Gun Club and Socialist Rifle Association that claim to be devoted to the idea of community defense. Their rationale is informed by the massacres at Colorado’s Club Q and Florida’s Pulse nightclub, and tempered by a long cultural distrust of the police, who they say have repeatedly failed to protect them from — and in some cases even perpetuated — right-wing hate.

Many sources interviewed for this story — particularly those who conceal their identities at protests — asked to use pseudonyms, in fear of being targeted or doxxed by the far right. Others were happy to share their names, judging that their public presence — or concealed-carry permits — shield them from harm. All of them, however, agree on one thing: The other side has guns and is willing to use them. The only answer is to be prepared to shoot back...............

Anti-Fascist. Armed to the Teeth

 

[MT15]

Jim Jordan is refusing to make the FBI “whistleblower” testimony available to the Democrats on his committee, even though it’s against House Rules to withhold that testimony. He is seriously out of his depth in this position, as he demonstrates nearly every meeting that he doesn’t know what he is doing.

Also, the reason we know that 3 FBI “whistleblowers” have had their security clearances canceled by the FBI for their actions either on Jan. 6 or their support of the attempt to overthrow the 2020 election is because Jim Jordan asked the FBI for info about them and then when he got it he tried to conceal it.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Jim Jordan is refusing to make the FBI “whistleblower” testimony available to the Democrats on his committee, even though it’s against House Rules to withhold that testimony. He is seriously out of his depth in this position, as he demonstrates nearly every meeting that he doesn’t know what he is doing.

Also, the reason we know that 3 FBI “whistleblowers” have had their security clearances canceled by the FBI for their actions either on Jan. 6 or their support of the attempt to overthrow the 2020 election is because Jim Jordan asked the FBI for info about them and then when he got it he tried to conceal it.

He's not out of his depth. He knows exactly what he's doing.

 

[MT15]

He's not out of his depth. He knows exactly what he's doing.

He looks like a fool. You have to be “ultra MAGA” to think otherwise and that’s a shrinking % of the population.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

He looks like a fool.

You are not wrong.

 

[MT15]

Former NFL players are now threatening US Congressmen. Great….

 

[Optimus Prime]

The shamelessness and recklessness of today’s Republican party seems to know no bounds. As the deadline for raising the debt ceiling or defaulting rapidly approaches, the party continues to hold the country hostage, telling Democrats: give us what we want – things we cannot get by going through normal democratic processes – or we will pitch the global economy off a cliff.

Democrats in Congress are doing their best to get their Republican colleagues to behave rationally, but it’s notoriously difficult to negotiate with terrorists. The Republicans want major spending cuts, but they want to force those cuts through by threat instead of having to legislate normally.

And the cuts they’re asking for are appalling: they include slashing funds to things like cancer research, rental assistance for the poor, support for schools with large numbers of low-income students, and pay for Americans in uniform.

The Republican bill would end Biden’s attempt at student loan debt relief, repeal tax breaks for renewables and clean energy while increasing reliance on fossil fuels, raise already-onerous work requirements to receive food stamps and welfare benefits, and decrease the efficiency and abilities of the IRS.

The Republican proposal would leave a great many Americans worse off – but it would be a boon for oil executives and wealthy tax avoiders.

It’s also an unconscionable display of bad faith and manipulation. This is not the first time that Congress has needed to raise the debt ceiling, and the stakes are so high that, traditionally, it’s been a bipartisan effort, with Democrats and Republicans alike largely agreeing that it would be wildly irresponsible and disgustingly devious to use such a vulnerable moment to strong-arm the opposing party.

The big exception came during the Tea Party takeover of the Republican party in 2011, when Republicans also used raising the debt ceiling to start a fight. Those Tea Party radicals seemed crazy then – but they had nothing on the absolutely unhinged lunatics of the Maga Republicans.

In a sane Congress operating in a functional country, everyone in Congress would agree that the US cannot default, and would behave accordingly. But this is not a sane Congress operating in a functional country, and that’s 100% because of the far-right takeover of the Republican party.

Today’s Republicans are a party of destruction. As much as they claim to want to make America great again, they seem much more intent on sowing division, fomenting chaos and embracing an ethos of nihilism.

There is no school shooting brutal enough to make them reconsider America’s extreme gun laws; no pregnant woman who suffers enough to make them take a step back on criminalizing abortion; and virtually nothing their unelected leader Donald Trump can to do make them reject him – allowing a deadly attack on the Capitol, being deemed a sexual abuser by a New York jury, and undermining America’s tradition of free and fair elections have not been enough to end the Republican party’s love affair with Trump.

As the party has not only embraced Trump but molded itself in his image, it has become all the more dangerous to the nation…….

The US debt ceiling crisis is more proof of Republicans’ cynicism and bad faith | Jill Filipovic

Republicans want to force spending cuts by threat instead of legislating – and the cuts they’re asking for are appalling

www.theguardian.com

 

[SamAndreas]

The shamelessness and recklessness of today’s Republican party seems to know no bounds. As the deadline for raising the debt ceiling or defaulting rapidly approaches, the party continues to hold the country hostage, telling Democrats: give us what we want – things we cannot get by going through normal democratic processes – or we will pitch the global economy off a cliff.

Democrats in Congress are doing their best to get their Republican colleagues to behave rationally, but it’s notoriously difficult to negotiate with terrorists. The Republicans want major spending cuts, but they want to force those cuts through by threat instead of having to legislate normally.

And the cuts they’re asking for are appalling: they include slashing funds to things like cancer research, rental assistance for the poor, support for schools with large numbers of low-income students, and pay for Americans in uniform.

The Republican bill would end Biden’s attempt at student loan debt relief, repeal tax breaks for renewables and clean energy while increasing reliance on fossil fuels, raise already-onerous work requirements to receive food stamps and welfare benefits, and decrease the efficiency and abilities of the IRS.

The Republican proposal would leave a great many Americans worse off – but it would be a boon for oil executives and wealthy tax avoiders.

It’s also an unconscionable display of bad faith and manipulation. This is not the first time that Congress has needed to raise the debt ceiling, and the stakes are so high that, traditionally, it’s been a bipartisan effort, with Democrats and Republicans alike largely agreeing that it would be wildly irresponsible and disgustingly devious to use such a vulnerable moment to strong-arm the opposing party.

The big exception came during the Tea Party takeover of the Republican party in 2011, when Republicans also used raising the debt ceiling to start a fight. Those Tea Party radicals seemed crazy then – but they had nothing on the absolutely unhinged lunatics of the Maga Republicans.

In a sane Congress operating in a functional country, everyone in Congress would agree that the US cannot default, and would behave accordingly. But this is not a sane Congress operating in a functional country, and that’s 100% because of the far-right takeover of the Republican party.

Today’s Republicans are a party of destruction. As much as they claim to want to make America great again, they seem much more intent on sowing division, fomenting chaos and embracing an ethos of nihilism.

There is no school shooting brutal enough to make them reconsider America’s extreme gun laws; no pregnant woman who suffers enough to make them take a step back on criminalizing abortion; and virtually nothing their unelected leader Donald Trump can to do make them reject him – allowing a deadly attack on the Capitol, being deemed a sexual abuser by a New York jury, and undermining America’s tradition of free and fair elections have not been enough to end the Republican party’s love affair with Trump.

As the party has not only embraced Trump but molded itself in his image, it has become all the more dangerous to the nation…….

The US debt ceiling crisis is more proof of Republicans’ cynicism and bad faith | Jill Filipovic

Republicans want to force spending cuts by threat instead of legislating – and the cuts they’re asking for are appalling

www.theguardian.com

Those Tea Party radicals are the MAGA Party radicals. They were the Yellow Ribbon Party radicals during both periods during the Bush years. And they were the Contract with America Party radicals during the Clinton years.

During the Carter and Reagan years Donald Warren called those voters Middle American Radicals, or MARS. I read the book The Radical Center: Middle Americans and the Politics of Alienation and called them Martians.

The college group of them called themselves Young Republicans, and maybe the non college group of them called themselves that as well.

I blame that Alex P Keaton for them.

Their average age is approaching 60 now.