What happens to the Republican Party now? (1 Viewer)

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
4,439
Reaction score
7,373
Location
Midwest
Offline
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?


 

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
2,752
Reaction score
1,979
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Online
so... He is on record for telling 10,000+ lies during his 4 years, so 99% of his twitter page would be blank. But remember he was spewing misinformation about Obama years prior. His words/lies lead to the insurrection.. not sure what the difference would be (in regards to him) if twitter deleted 99% of his posts vs banning him

No, I'm not talking about lies. People lie their arse off on Twitter all the time. They don't get banned, usually. The posts that should be deleted are those that directly impact public safety. Otherwise, using lies as the standard, you'd be banning over half of Twitter. So no, not 99% of his Tweets would be deleted. Twitter just got tired of having to put labels on his posts stating it's misinformation. I get why they did it, but again, I do think they do it somewhat arbitrarily.
 

zztop

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
1,149
Reaction score
1,438
Age
121
Location
in a van down by the river
Offline
No, I'm not talking about lies. People lie their arse off on Twitter all the time. They don't get banned, usually. The posts that should be deleted are those that directly impact public safety. Otherwise, using lies as the standard, you'd be banning over half of Twitter. So no, not 99% of his Tweets would be deleted. Twitter just got tired of having to put labels on his posts stating it's misinformation. I get why they did it, but again, I do think they do it somewhat arbitrarily.

I guess I view it as a bunch of lies built up, in cumulative way, over years, and feeding his base, which had a culminating effect in which some of his followers stormed the capital and trying to overthrow the government. On the surface a lie here and there might not be a big deal, but you see what his rhetoric eventually caused. On the other hand some of his followers are just too stupid, brainwashed or gullible that they believed everything he was saying... so maybe the real issue is with those people and not him? I don't really know the answer

edit: you can say this is all in hindsight, that nobody could have known his rhetoric would have resulted in people iterally taking his words to mean storm the capital etc... but I think there have been enough "strikes" that twitter gave him, before they said enough was enough. It isn't like it was his first or second, or hundredth offense
 
Last edited:

CoolBrees

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
Messages
848
Reaction score
1,948
Age
44
Location
Portland, Oregon
Offline
@DaveXA

you said Twitter was created ideally for “speech in the public square”

I love ya Dave cause that is insanely ideal.

Twitter was created to make money. They provide a service at a price people are willing to pay (free) to give up their rights while on their platform. Just like you do every time you enter a private business. You have waived the rights they ask you to waive when you walk in, or log on depending
 

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
2,752
Reaction score
1,979
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Online
@DaveXA

you said Twitter was created ideally for “speech in the public square”

I love ya Dave cause that is insanely ideal.

Twitter was created to make money. They provide a service at a price people are willing to pay (free) to give up their rights while on their platform. Just like you do every time you enter a private business. You have waived the rights they ask you to waive when you walk in, or log on depending

I get all that, but sometimes what we start with isn't what we end up with. We all know for practical purposes in today's culture that Twitter is the virtual version of the town square.

While yes, we agree to terms of service, just like this site, we also have to acknowledge that Twitter and Facebook in particular have a different level of responsibility than other similar platforms. There's a reason their CEOs have made trips to testify on Capitol Hill.

It's not Trump being banned that bothers me. But rather whether a political or social class across the board is being silenced. Who gets to decide that?

I don't know, I'm just wondering if this is a slippery slope to more broadly banning points of view that we may not agree with. Do you not think that's a valid concern?
 

superchuck500

U.S. Blues
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
2,508
Reaction score
5,955
Location
Charleston, SC
Offline
I get all that, but sometimes what we start with isn't what we end up with. We all know for practical purposes in today's culture that Twitter is the virtual version of the town square.

While yes, we agree to terms of service, just like this site, we also have to acknowledge that Twitter and Facebook in particular have a different level of responsibility than other similar platforms. There's a reason their CEOs have made trips to testify on Capitol Hill.

It's not Trump being banned that bothers me. But rather whether a political or social class across the board is being silenced. Who gets to decide that?

I don't know, I'm just wondering if this is a slippery slope to more broadly banning points of view that we may not agree with. Do you not think that's a valid concern?

I think your concerns about the trouble with speech and content regulation, "truth deciding", etc. are totally well-founded and if we were experiencing that kind of speech repression or censorship, I'd be with you but I just don't think that's where we are. Twitter and Facebook are just companies with successful products - I don't put them on some pedestal of being a de facto public forum and subject to content regulation by the government, which is also a serious speech-regulation concern. And Trump still has near-instant access to social media, TV, and print anytime he wants it (as this line of discussion indicates).

He just doesn't get to be on the most mainstream platform because he habitually violated their terms of service. That doesn't appear to me to be a First Amendment issue . . . but telling Twitter they can't do that and have to let him post violative material on their website does.
 

DaveXA

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
2,752
Reaction score
1,979
Location
Vienna, VA (via Lafayette)
Online
I think your concerns about the trouble with speech and content regulation, "truth deciding", etc. are totally well-founded and if we were experiencing that kind of speech repression or censorship, I'd be with you but I just don't think that's where we are. Twitter and Facebook are just companies with successful products - I don't put them on some pedestal of being a de facto public forum and subject to content regulation by the government, which is also a serious speech-regulation concern. And Trump still has near-instant access to social media, TV, and print anytime he wants it (as this line of discussion indicates).

He just doesn't get to be on the most mainstream platform because he habitually violated their terms of service. That doesn't appear to me to be a First Amendment issue . . . but telling Twitter they can't do that and have to let him post violative material on their website does.

Well said, thanks.
 

Optimus Prime

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
1,472
Reaction score
2,399
Age
44
Location
Washington DC Metro
Offline
The Republican Party certainly got some good (albeit expected) news today with the Census results being released.

Texas is syphoning off congressional seats and electoral college votes from some Democratic strongholds.

more on the Census - maybe the citizenship question did exactly was it was meant to. I don't know how much merit it has but I did read that the intent and the reason it was pushed so hard wasn't really to get the question on but to lower the Hispanic count
======================================

Democratic lawmakers and election experts expressed concerns that Monday's release of the Census Bureau's congressional apportionment data reflected a systematic undercount of Latino residents that may be linked to former President Donald Trump's efforts to change census rules.

The Census Bureau announced that Texas would gain two House seats after the latest population count, while Florida, Colorado, North Carolina, Oregon and Montana would each gain one. California, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and West Virginia will each lose a seat. But those numbers were well short of the projected changes, particularly in states with fast-growing Latino populations like Texas, Florida and Arizona. All three of those states were projected to gain one additional seat apiece, sparking concerns that Latino residents were undercounted, which could have important effects on political power and the distribution of federal funds.

"There is a serious issue with undercounting of Hispanics in this Census," warned Sam Wang, a professor who runs the Princeton Election Consortium and Princeton Gerrymandering Project. "The states that underperformed relative to July 2020 population estimates included Texas, Florida, Colorado, Arizona and Nevada — all Hispanic-rich states. A real risk of poor representation."

Dave Wasserman, an election data expert at the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, agreed that lower-than-expected counts in Arizona, Florida, Texas and California may suggest a "larger-than-expected, systemic undercount in heavily Hispanic areas."...............

But many were quick to blame Trump's failed attempt to add a citizenship question to the census for a potential undercount of Latino voters after accusing the administration of trying to "sabotage" an accurate count. The Supreme Court ultimately rejected the attempt and advocacy groups spent months on outreach to traditionally undercounted communities, but some fear damage may already have been done.

"It caused people to not respond to the census," Kimball Brace, president of the redistricting consulting firm Election Data Services, told the Arizona Daily Star. "And, as a result, they were all lower than what they were anticipating. … If you got all of those press reports and commentary and everything else talking about how much Trump doesn't want people to respond if they're Hispanic, you don't necessarily have to have a question on the survey."

The reapportionment data stunned political observers in Arizona, which saw its population grow by 11% over the last decade but failed to gain a House seat. Some lawmakers faulted Republican Gov. Doug Ducey, who invested nearly $2 million to boost response rates, for not doing enough to counter Trump's impact on the count............

 

insidejob

Well-known member
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
1,940
Reaction score
2,607
Age
85
Location
Back in 70124
Offline
more on the Census - maybe the citizenship question did exactly was it was meant to. I don't know how much merit it has but I did read that the intent and the reason it was pushed so hard wasn't really to get the question on but to lower the Hispanic count
======================================

Democratic lawmakers and election experts expressed concerns that Monday's release of the Census Bureau's congressional apportionment data reflected a systematic undercount of Latino residents that may be linked to former President Donald Trump's efforts to change census rules.

The Census Bureau announced that Texas would gain two House seats after the latest population count, while Florida, Colorado, North Carolina, Oregon and Montana would each gain one. California, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and West Virginia will each lose a seat. But those numbers were well short of the projected changes, particularly in states with fast-growing Latino populations like Texas, Florida and Arizona. All three of those states were projected to gain one additional seat apiece, sparking concerns that Latino residents were undercounted, which could have important effects on political power and the distribution of federal funds.

"There is a serious issue with undercounting of Hispanics in this Census," warned Sam Wang, a professor who runs the Princeton Election Consortium and Princeton Gerrymandering Project. "The states that underperformed relative to July 2020 population estimates included Texas, Florida, Colorado, Arizona and Nevada — all Hispanic-rich states. A real risk of poor representation."

Dave Wasserman, an election data expert at the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, agreed that lower-than-expected counts in Arizona, Florida, Texas and California may suggest a "larger-than-expected, systemic undercount in heavily Hispanic areas."...............

But many were quick to blame Trump's failed attempt to add a citizenship question to the census for a potential undercount of Latino voters after accusing the administration of trying to "sabotage" an accurate count. The Supreme Court ultimately rejected the attempt and advocacy groups spent months on outreach to traditionally undercounted communities, but some fear damage may already have been done.

"It caused people to not respond to the census," Kimball Brace, president of the redistricting consulting firm Election Data Services, told the Arizona Daily Star. "And, as a result, they were all lower than what they were anticipating. … If you got all of those press reports and commentary and everything else talking about how much Trump doesn't want people to respond if they're Hispanic, you don't necessarily have to have a question on the survey."

The reapportionment data stunned political observers in Arizona, which saw its population grow by 11% over the last decade but failed to gain a House seat. Some lawmakers faulted Republican Gov. Doug Ducey, who invested nearly $2 million to boost response rates, for not doing enough to counter Trump's impact on the count............

I think that whole census should be scrapped and redone. COVID, Trump pushing the citizenship question and then shutting it down early all guarantee that it is not accurate.
 

zztop

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
1,149
Reaction score
1,438
Age
121
Location
in a van down by the river
Offline
I might be a little behind on this, but I just read Lin Wood is running for South Carolina Republican chairmanship
 

superchuck500

U.S. Blues
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
2,508
Reaction score
5,955
Location
Charleston, SC
Offline
I might be a little behind on this, but I just read Lin Wood is running for South Carolina Republican chairmanship

Yes, and it's a shirt show. Wood basically relocated across the border, perhaps b/c he thinks SC is more friendly confines for whatever political future he sees for himself, but he's trying to take over the state GOP. The incumbent is a deep red guy but not a conspiracy populist. He's actually been in politics and lobbying for 30 years and has written books about effective political organizing. I'm hearing from someone who knows much more about state Republicans than I do that McKissick should be able to put Wood away easily - the question is how much damage does the 'chaos candidate' inflict. Wood is already making these (now-standard operations) Q-style veiled allegations about McKissick being involved with pornography (apparently an IP address for a site that used to be connected to McKissick but owned by a third-party web company is now porn, but that has nothing to do with McKissick, but Wood doesn't care about actual details).

I'm afraid the GOP is going to see this repeated all over the country - as the party struggles to define just how much of the Trump/populist/delusion they're willing to (or forced to) embrace going forward.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #538
OP
MT15

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
4,439
Reaction score
7,373
Location
Midwest
Offline
The GOP is gone, the party we used to know doesn’t exist anymore.

Mitt Romney was roundly booed this weekend because he dared to question Trump. Arizona is conducting something (its not an audit) to try to prove that Trump’s lies are true, and they are using Q conspiracy idiots to do the exercise and unbelievably they have the actual ballots. If anyone dares to oppose the craziness that the GOP has devolved into, they are ostracized. Cancelled, if you will.

Cultism is now embraced by what used to be the GOP. They don’t even have a party platform any longer. They don’t stand for anything except fealty to Trump. It’s the scariest thing I’ve seen in my lifetime. Every Republican should have to answer for this whenever a journalist has access, but people are acting like it isn’t happening. That just makes it scarier.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Advertisement

General News Feed

Fact Checkers News Feed

Sponsored

Top Bottom