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

[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?

 

[MT15]

Abbott isn’t having a great week on social media, lol:

 

[MT15]

Reminder of the GOP playbook for decades:

 

[el caliente]

 

[Optimus Prime]

For millennia, politicians have sought power in order to shape the future. Not today’s MAGA Republicans, though. They have decided to use their House majority to try to shape, or reshape, the past.


Last week, Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) introduced resolutions to “expunge” former president Donald Trump’s two impeachments, “as if such Articles of Impeachment had never passed the full House of Representatives.”

Incredibly, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) — whose job is to be the adult in the room — said Friday that he supports this initiative, which actual adults can see is ridiculous and obviously futile.


The aim appears to be to allow Trump, the likely GOP presidential nominee in next year’s election, to claim that despite the events we all witnessed, he was never impeached at all. That lie can then become part of the fake historical record he sells to his supporters……..

This notion of impeachment expungement is so laughable that it’s easy to chuckle and guffaw past what’s so serious about it. The biggest threat to our democracy, in my view, is the fact that we no longer agree on even the most basic facts.

If some of us believe it’s raining right now and others believe it’s a sunny day, how can we possibly come to the right decision on whether to invest in umbrellas or sunscreen?


Now, to flatter Trump’s vanity and help him politically, Greene and Stefanik want to create a kind of alternate-universe timeline in which President Donald the Great was never really impeached — because, considering his Greatness, how could he have been?

The right-wing media echo chamber will treat the expungement as legitimate, which would make the impeachments somehow illegitimate. And the nation’s information gap, already a canyon, will further widen…….

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/06/26/trump-impeachment-expunge-greene-stefanik/

 

[MT15]

 

[LA - L.A.]

I find them demeaning, inaccurate, and polarizing terms.

You find blacks and whites demeaning, inaccurate, and polarizing terms?

I grew up in HISD, in schools that were evenly divided between blacks, "Chicanos" and whites.​

Yes, blacks voted for Republicans in droves during the years after Republicans freed them.​

​

Low Black vote for the GOP was to be expected in 2008 and 2012.​

​

Praise Allah that the GOP has stopped turning up its nose at appealing to blacks.​

​

But Republicans have turned up their noses at appealing to blacks specifically...​

​

If they bring the spirit of deliberately reaching out to women and blacks, they will strengthen the Republican Party voter base greatly.​

The differences far outweigh the similarities.

The physical differences between blacks and whites & the physical differences between transgender woman and biological females are different. Even, though the level of harm done by the bigoted policies that target each group may vary, the bigotry is the same. That's the point that you keep missing.

The amount of contempt and hatred that bigots hold toward blacks and transgender men is the same. The harmful policies won't just end at the bathrooms and sports competitions, if the bigots get their way. As bigots always do, they will keep trying to enact more and more oppressive policies. That's why we should never give bigots a single inch on anything, because they will use that inch to push for 1 mile, then 10 miles, then 100 miles, and so on.

I'm not saying you would do this. I don't know if you are bigot or not. Your motivations to push for restrooms policies may not being rooted in bigotry. I sincerely don't know and it frankly doesn't matter to me one way or the other.

The backlash against all LGBQTIA+ people is being incited and steered by bigots who do in fact see them as inferior and subhuman.

• They have been murdered for who they are.
• They have been raped for who they are.
• They have been brutalized for who they are.
• They have been harassed for who they are.
• They have been traumatized for who they are.
• They have been disrespected and shamed for who they are.
• They have been dehumanized for who they are.
• They have been demonized for who they are.
• They have been called sins, morally corrupt and abominations to god by political and religious leaders for who they are

So whether you are bigoted or not, I'm going to keep pushing back on anything that you or anyone else says that adds to or gives cover to the unjust, cruel and very non-Christian way that they are treated.

Then the homogeneity of beliefs...

There is no homogeneity of beliefs. I think you have a perception problem. You seem to incorrectly see everyone who disagrees with you, about anything, as all having identical beliefs. Yes, people who disagree with you are naturally, and unremarkably, going to have some overlapping beliefs. But if you took the time to carefully read what people are actually saying you'd realize, that even though there is some commonality of beliefs, there is no homogeneity of beliefs.

Can you explain or rephrase that? It seems untrue if taken literally.

It's both literally and contextually true. Telling someone they are wrong is literally different from telling them you disagree with them. It's right there in the literal words.

My original point was more about the contextual difference, not the literal one.

• There are two basic types of things we can disagree on with other people
  1. Facts
  2. Opinions/Interpretations/perceptions
• It's important for us to know when we are disagreeing on facts and when we are disagreeing on opinions
  1. One of the biggest causes of heated disagreements is people mistakenly thinking they are disagreeing on facts, when they are actually disagreeing on opinions/interpretations/perceptions.
  2. This happens because a lot of people mistakenly see their opinions/Interpretations/perceptions as objective facts.
• When disagreeing on facts
  1. Anyone who is incorrect on the facts is objectively incorrect, which we have a tendency to think and speak to as "you're wrong." If we learned nothing from Trump, it's that "wrong" is an emotionally charged term that means a lot more than just "you're incorrect"
  2. If you heard intelligence and political professionals sharing their thoughts on Wagner's insurrection in Russia you would have heard statements of disagreements on facts phrased as
     1. I don't think that's accurate
     2. That's not the facts as I know/understand them
     3. I think that's incorrect.
  3. What you didn't here is
     1. You're wrong
     2. That's wrong
• When disagreeing on Opinions/Interpretations/perceptions, which is what people tend to disagree on the most
  • Opinions/Interpretations/perceptions are subjective in nature, so they can not be objectively incorrect/wrong
    • If someone says corn dogs are better than hot dogs and you love hot dogs, but detest corn dogs
      1. Disagreeing would be saying "I like hot dogs more"
      2. Disagreeing would not be saying "You're wrong, hot dogs are better." That's not disagreeing. That's telling someone that what they like or want is wrong.

From time to time, we all tell each other "you're wrong" when we disagree with them over opinions/Interpretations/perceptions. It happens, but it's important that we make a conscious effort to avoid doing it and that we own it when we do it.

That's the best I can do. It's been a long time since I've taken Philosophy 101 which covered and better explained the difference between disagreeing with someone, and telling yourself and them that they are wrong. If anyone can explain it better please do, because civil discussion and disagreement depends on people understanding that difference.

I believe my words were closer to "they will be fine" not "there is no danger." My point - and I thought it obvious - was that schoolchildren are safer when adults monitor them. Hence bathrooms present dangers that classroom do not.

Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't sure what you meant and I didn't jump to any conclusions. I wouldn't have asked for clarification if I had jumped to conclusions, because I wouldn't have had a need for clarification.

It appears that you have pegged me as a bigoted trans phobe and will interpret my words in that light even when it defies logic.

I only see you as being hyper-driven to "win" what you mistakenly perceive as "debate" which compels you to say whatever you think you have to say to "win," instead of just saying what you sincerely think and believe in a straightforward, non-combative manner.

I approach this board as an opportunity to have straight forward discussions on things I don't get to discuss often in my day to day life. I don't always succeed in that approach, but that's what I strive for and work towards.

You seem to approach this board as an opportunity to compete with people who don't agree with you. You seem to always be looking for and picking rhetorical fights. You seem to be here just to play games.

 

[Optimus Prime]

In a new book, the Trump ally and potential running mate Kari Lake blows a “birther” racist dog whistle to supporters, claiming Barack Obama had a “mysterious past” when he ran for president – but does not mention that she donated to Obama in 2008 and reportedly campaigned for him door-to-door.

“The end of [George W Bush’s] presidency saw the complete and catastrophic collapse of the Republican party,” Lake writes, in Unafraid. “One Barack Hussein Obama, a man with a mysterious past and virtually no accomplishments on his résumé, ascended to the presidency.”

Rightwing extremist Lake, who supports Trump’s lie about voter fraud in 2020 and maintains despite repeated court defeats that her defeat for Arizona governor last year was also the result of cheating, also complains that the US media “swarm[ed] any independent journalist who attempted to give [Obama] a proper vetting”.

The “birther conspiracy”, long championed by Donald Trump, holds that Obama was not a US citizen, having been born overseas to a Kenyan father, and thus should have been disqualified from becoming president.

Though disproven by Obama himself, the racist birther rhetoric lingers on the US right, including Islamophobic overtones invoked by Lake’s use of Obama’s middle name.…….

Kari Lake reference to ‘mysterious past’ of Obama revives birther conspiracy

Kari Lake claims Obama had a ‘mysterious past’ blows ‘birther’ dog whistle

www.theguardian.com

 

[Snarky Sack]

You find blacks and whites demeaning, inaccurate, and polarizing terms?

Yes, but I am willing to speak in the terms commonly used by posters on this board, as I have demonstrated also by using the definition of "woman" that holds currency here.

Nice research, though. Nice try.

You might find it beneficial to research the issues that you discuss as thoroughly as you do people who outdo you in debates about those issues.

The physical differences between blacks and whites & the physical differences between transgender woman and biological females are different. Even, though the level of harm done by the bigoted policies that target each group may vary, the bigotry is the same. That's the point that you keep missing.

The amount of contempt and hatred that bigots hold toward blacks and transgender men is the same. The harmful policies won't just end at the bathrooms and sports competitions, if the bigots get their way. As bigots always do, they will keep trying to enact more and more oppressive policies. That's why we should never give bigots a single inch on anything, because they will use that inch to push for 1 mile, then 10 miles, then 100 miles, and so on.

Which is why transactivists come off like such entitled little twits. Not meaning you in particular. That's why your side so consistently resorts to violence as a means to stop debate. Someone appears on a college campus with a sign that says "children cannot consent to puberty blockers," and they are attacked. Someone wants to speak about the unfairness of men in womens sports and they get chased, and held hostage. Target decides to put their pride merchandise in the back of the store and they get bomb threats.

Because it is not enough even to support pride. You have to support it exactly the way you are told to and with a sufficient level of enthusiasm or be targeted for violence.

No one in politics gets their own way in every particular, no matter how many names they call people who disagree with them. Time for transactivists to grow up and realize this, before they really bring about a backlash.

I'm not saying you would do this. I don't know if you are bigot or not. Your motivations to push for restrooms policies may not being rooted in bigotry. I sincerely don't know and it frankly doesn't matter to me one way or the other.

You seem pretty sure that it is bigotry that drives views such as mine. If it is not bigotry that motivates my push, what would it be?

The backlash against all LGBQTIA+ people is being incited and steered by bigots who do in fact see them as inferior and subhuman.

• They have been murdered for who they are.
• They have been raped for who they are.
• They have been brutalized for who they are.
• They have been harassed for who they are.
• They have been traumatized for who they are.
• They have been disrespected and shamed for who they are.
• They have been dehumanized for who they are.
• They have been demonized for who they are.
• They have been called sins, morally corrupt and abominations to god by political and religious leaders for who they are

So whether you are bigoted or not, I'm going to keep pushing back on anything that you or anyone else says that adds to or gives cover to the unjust, cruel and very non-Christian way that they are treated.

Please don't dislocate your shoulder patting yourself on the back, guy. Again, most people who oppose the transactivist movement only want children left out of it and women/girls sports and private areas left alone. That's my stance, I haven't demonized, dehumanized, rapes, or called anyone a sinner.

You realize that there have been transsexuals, as they used to be called, since time immemorial? Transsexual treatment, including surgery, was around since at least the seventies in my memory, and nobody much gave a shirt. Because it was adults making their own decisions, and with an isolated exception or two, they stayed out of women's sports.

There is no homogeneity of beliefs. I think you have a perception problem. You seem to incorrectly see everyone who disagrees with you, about anything, as all having identical beliefs. Yes, people who disagree with you are naturally, and unremarkably, going to have some overlapping beliefs. But if you took the time to carefully read what people are actually saying you'd realize, that even though there is some commonality of beliefs, there is no homogeneity of beliefs.

Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much. I've been told that posters "like you" don't last long here, because they are ignored, or reported so often that they are banned. It is obvious that far more posters are dedicated to both hating Trump and to transactivism, than support Trump or oppose transgenderization of children and encroachment on female sports and private spaces.

If you are denying that, I have to question whether you are paying attention.

I only see you as being hyper-driven to "win" what you mistakenly perceive as "debate" which compels you to say whatever you think you have to say to "win," instead of just saying what you sincerely think and believe in a straightforward, non-combative manner.

I approach this board as an opportunity to have straight forward discussions on things I don't get to discuss often in my day to day life. I don't always succeed in that approach, but that's what I strive for and work towards.

You seem to approach this board as an opportunity to compete with people who don't agree with you. You seem to always be looking for and picking rhetorical fights. You seem to be here just to play games.

This is a board on which people debate. I know, because I keep giving my opinion and others keep debating me. Maybe prior to my starting to post here, there was little of that. I don't know. But talking about political topics will either lead to debate or immediate consensus. I find the former much more interesting and productive.

Your insistance on dissecting words instead of discussing those things that I also don't get to talk about in everyday life mystifies then.

Looking over this post I responded to, I see nothing but explanations of word meanings, a lame attempt at "gotcha," and whining over my personality. I think we can leave it at that, unless your next post has some discussion of the issues identified in the thread title.

Actually, I take that back. You did mention the transgender issue, but only to repeat the words "bigot" and "bigotry," several times. You said nothing to refute my claims or address my concerns about safety, privacy, and fairness. You do realize that name calling is not an actual argument, right?

 

[bird]

Yes, but I am willing to speak in the terms commonly used by posters on this board, as I have demonstrated also by using the definition of "woman" that holds currency here.

Nice research, though. Nice try.

You might find it beneficial to research the issues that you discuss as thoroughly as you do people who outdo you in debates about those issues.

Which is why transactivists come off like such entitled little twits. Not meaning you in particular. That's why your side so consistently resorts to violence as a means to stop debate. Someone appears on a college campus with a sign that says "children cannot consent to puberty blockers," and they are attacked. Someone wants to speak about the unfairness of men in womens sports and they get chased, and held hostage. Target decides to put their pride merchandise in the back of the store and they get bomb threats.

Because it is not enough even to support pride. You have to support it exactly the way you are told to and with a sufficient level of enthusiasm or be targeted for violence.

No one in politics gets their own way in every particular, no matter how many names they call people who disagree with them. Time for transactivists to grow up and realize this, before they really bring about a backlash.

You seem pretty sure that it is bigotry that drives views such as mine. If it is not bigotry that motivates my push, what would it be?

Please don't dislocate your shoulder patting yourself on the back, guy. Again, most people who oppose the transactivist movement only want children left out of it and women/girls sports and private areas left alone. That's my stance, I haven't demonized, dehumanized, rapes, or called anyone a sinner.

You realize that there have been transsexuals, as they used to be called, since time immemorial? Transsexual treatment, including surgery, was around since at least the seventies in my memory, and nobody much gave a shirt. Because it was adults making their own decisions, and with an isolated exception or two, they stayed out of women's sports.

Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much. I've been told that posters "like you" don't last long here, because they are ignored, or reported so often that they are banned. It is obvious that far more posters are dedicated to both hating Trump and to transactivism, than support Trump or oppose transgenderization of children and encroachment on female sports and private spaces.

If you are denying that, I have to question whether you are paying attention.


This is a board on which people debate. I know, because I keep giving my opinion and others keep debating me. Maybe prior to my starting to post here, there was little of that. I don't know. But talking about political topics will either lead to debate or immediate consensus. I find the former much more interesting and productive.

Your insistance on dissecting words instead of discussing those things that I also don't get to talk about in everyday life mystifies then.

Looking over this post I responded to, I see nothing but explanations of word meanings, a lame attempt at "gotcha," and whining over my personality. I think we can leave it at that, unless your next post has some discussion of the issues identified in the thread title.

Actually, I take that back. You did mention the transgender issue, but only to repeat the words "bigot" and "bigotry," several times. You said nothing to refute my claims or address my concerns about safety, privacy, and fairness. You do realize that name calling is not an actual argument, right?

What claims of fairness?

 

[MT15]

You know there’s already a thread for this subject. You guys keep confusing me about what thread I am looking at.

This is a thread about Rs and their antics:

 

[Optimus Prime]

President Joe Biden made a joke during a press conference with the prime minister of India and tech CEOs. Now, Republican legislators are sharing a spliced clip of it in an attempt to discredit the president.

Just as cameras began to focus on Biden at the beginning of the conference, he said to the camera, "I started off without you, and I sold a lot of state secrets and a lot of very important things that we shared."

The interaction led to a laugh from Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the president's audience.

"Now, all kidding aside — look, we're teaming up to design and develop new technologies that are going to transform the lives of our people around the world," Biden ended the joke with.

Biden's joke comes around the time former President Donald Trump was federally indicted for mishandling classified documents.

In the days following Biden's press conference, select Republican legislators spread the clip without Biden saying "all kidding aside" to attack his credibility..............

MSN

Twitter did point out it was edited and had a link to the full exchange

 

[Booker]

I was going to post this as well, but wasn't sure which thread was most appropriate. Biden makes a joke and Republicans are up in arms. Meanwhile, Trump is recorded admitting to doing what Biden joked about.

Biden made a joke. Now Republican legislators are trying to use it as impeachment fodder.

"I started off without you, and I sold a lot of state secrets and a lot of very important things that we shared," Biden said before adding, "Now, all kidding aside."

www.yahoo.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

STEPHEN MILLER, ONE of Donald Trump’s top immigration advisers, advocated using U.S. predator drones in 2018 to blow up migrant boats full of unarmed civilians, according to an upcoming book by a former administration official.

In a passage reviewed by Rolling Stone, former Trump Department of Homeland Security appointee Miles Taylor writes about an April 2018 conversation in which Miller allegedly advocated an attack on a migrant ship headed for the United States. Miller, Taylor writes, argued for the potential mass killing of civilians by suggesting they were not protected under the U.S. Constitution because they were in international waters.

Taylor is the writer behind the infamous “Anonymous” New York Times op-ed that set off a furious hunt for the turncoat in the halls of Trump’s administration. After leaving the administration, Taylor endorsed Joe Biden during the 2020 presidential election, and later revealed himself to be “Anonymous.”

Rolling Stone has reviewed written documentation from during the Trump administration that supports Taylor’s claim. Taylor’s account, however, is contested, both by Miller and by another person present……..

Taylor’s book, Blowback, describes the alleged 2018 conversation in depth. The critical passage reads:

‘Admiral, the military has aerial drones, correct?’ Stephen inquired.

‘Yes,’ Zukunft replied.

‘And some of those drones are equipped with missiles, correct?’

‘Sure,’ the commandant answered, clearly wondering where the line of questioning was going.

‘And when a boat full of migrants is in international waters, they aren’t protected by the U.S. Constitution, right?’

‘Technically, no, but I’m not sure what you’re getting at.’
Tell me why, then, can’t we use a Predator drone to obliterate that boat?’

Admiral Zukunft looked nonplussed. ‘Because, Stephen, it would be against international law.’

According to the book, Miller begins arguing with Zukunft:

[The] United States launched airstrikes on terrorists in disputed areas all the time, Miller said, or retaliated against pirates commandeering ships off the coast of Somalia. The Coast Guard chief calmly explained the difference. America attacked enemy forces when they were armed and posed an imminent threat. Seafaring migrants were generally unarmed civilians. They quarreled for a few minutes. Stephen wasn’t interested in the moral conflict of drone-bombing migrants. He wanted to know whether anyone could stop America from doing it.………..

Top Trump Adviser Pushed for Drone Strikes on Migrants, New Book Claims

Stephen Miller denies the account, and a person present has “no recollection” of the alleged conversation, but the book accuses the top Trump adviser of suggesting an atrocity

www.rollingstone.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

When the benefits of this starts becoming apparent and undeniable democrats should make it widely known that he voted against it

and he should be asked about voting against it in every single interview
========================

On Tuesday, Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama celebrated the fact that his state will receive $1.4 billion in federal funding to expand access to the internet statewide.

"Broadband is vital for the success of our rural communities and for our entire economy," he wrote. "Great to see Alabama receive crucial funds to boost ongoing broadband efforts."

The wrinkle: nearly two years ago, Tuberville voted against the bill that's providing that money.

MSN

 

[cuddlemonkey]

When the benefits of this starts becoming apparent and undeniable democrats should make it widely known that he voted against it

and he should be asked about voting against it in every single interview
========================

On Tuesday, Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama celebrated the fact that his state will receive $1.4 billion in federal funding to expand access to the internet statewide.

"Broadband is vital for the success of our rural communities and for our entire economy," he wrote. "Great to see Alabama receive crucial funds to boost ongoing broadband efforts."

The wrinkle: nearly two years ago, Tuberville voted against the bill that's providing that money.

MSN

Tubs is a worthless grifter that thinks the three branches of government are the executive, the House, and the Senate.

 

[MT15]

 

[MT15]

Breitbart is evidently all in for Trump:

 

[DaveXA]

Another tweet from Coulter I agree with? Hell has indeed frozen over.