What happens to the Republican Party now? (2 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?

 

[Incumbent]

I think I would pick something cooler, but you are welcome to believe as you please.

I don't know how you mean that. Do you mean that all of you literally know Dave in real life, or that you know his online persona so well that he no longer seems like an anonymous poster?

I hope you don't get to know other people online so well that you meet them in the mall parking lot.

Same reason you ignore my experiences when they challenge your narrow beliefs. They are unverifiable, so you are right not to accept them as reasons to change your mind.

Not at all. If the initial response that I got had not been immediately in the attack mode, I probably would have approached this board much differently. I'm leaving in three days because that was my plan all along for reasons I have explained.

It wasn't you in the early personal attacks, but it certainly was Dave. I had him on ignore for a while because his posts were just these little one-line insults while I was debating another poster. One of your more honest colleagues told me that I was being hazed, which is just another form of bullying. Like any bully, these ones ran into one who stood up to them and they hated it.

Still, I bear none of them any ill will. I hope they are happier without me on the board, especially Dave who seems never to work at this work at home job of his. (I'm on my one week I get during the summer) Reserving the right to return on occasion to talk about the accuracy of some of my predictions. Right, I'll remind without gloating, wrong, I'll own up.

The good news is you don’t actually have to have hopes about who and how I meet people.

If Dave was a jerk to you I can imagine what you did to deserve that, having observed how you’ve interacted with people here. I don’t know if you were attacked and bullied, but reading that from you has left me wondering if you actually expected to have an exclusive on being a jackhole. Surely not, right?

I think you came here for the negative reactions because that’s what you were fishing for. Maybe to amuse yourself? Cool, cool. I have no idea how you found this board, nor what explanation you’ve already given for why you have to leave soon, and I’m not sure you’d be honest about any of that, anyway.

You didn’t post 1,100 times in a month out of a desire to be a constructive part of the discussion. You kicked the doors in and started guns blazing. I don’t think you hit much of anything you were aiming at.

 

[Snarky Sack]

The good news is you don’t actually have to have hopes about who and how I meet people.

If Dave was a jerk to you I can only imagine what you did to deserve that; which isn’t all that hard to do observing how you’ve interacted with people here. I don’t know if you were attacked and bullied, but reading that from you has left me wondering if you actually expected to have an exclusive on being a jackhole. Surely not, right?

Here is a screen shot of my very first post:

Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case )

Former President D. Trump has been indicted by a New York Grand Jury. There will be much to talk about on this topic because this is just the first step in a lengthy process. Possibly it is worthy of its own thread here rather than posting about Trump's indictment in already existing threads...

madaboutpolitics.com

See any personal attacks on any posters? Here are some responses:

"Lock her up!". Buttery males. Benghazi.

No integrity...NONE...and PROUD!

Do you mean the target of the investigation has little room to stop or hinder the investigation? Oh no, the horrors...

As my suspicions are confirmed. The persecuted, everyone else does it, and everyone is out to get me persona appears . That explains the detachment from reality.

Because sweet little baby Jesus said so? Or something? Don't let facts get in the way of faith!!!!

Add to that, there were ZERO leaks from Smith's investigation, despite what worshipers of trump would say. The only comments regarding the investigation came from its target.

Did you read the citation or are your info from your assumptions? Do you understand email chains? Do you understand the vast difference between replying to an email that someone included vs hoarding vast national security secrets and a conspiracy to withhold it from the government?

That was in the first two pages after my very first and very respectful post. I'm not complaining, I would not have stayed if it bothered me in the slightest. But don't pull my leg about me being treated with respect until I deserved to be treated without it.

I think you came here for the negative reactions because that’s what you were fishing for. Maybe to amuse yourself? Cool, cool. I have no idea how you found this board, nor what explanation you’ve already given for why you have to leave soon, and I’m not sure you’d be honest about any of that, anyway.

You didn’t post 1,100 times in a month out of a desire to be a constructive part of the discussion. You kicked the doors in and started guns blazing. I don’t think you hit much of anything you were aiming at.

I posted so much because every time I posted, I had three to six posters wanting to respond. I get it, I was the only one deviating from the progessive line, so I many people wanting to dispute what I said. I maintained a respectful tone with all until it became plain that the respect would never be reciprocated.

Since you defend Dave specifically, here are some typical posts from him in my first week or so here:

"Yeah,"

Notice how he's not even engaging me, just making snarky little comments about me to other posters. I put him on ignore for a while because he was an annoying distraction. When I let him back he was better in that he did engage me. Not with anything remotely resembling respect, though.

Again, not complaining. Truthing.

You are the second poster to use the "guns blazing," metaphor. I think this is the disconnect many progressives have with reality: not understanding the difference between disagreement and disrespect, or between words and violence.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

You are the second poster to use the "guns blazing," metaphor. I think this is the disconnect many progressives have with reality: not understanding the difference between disagreement and disrespect, or between words and violence.

As opposed to your first post, which demonstrates a lack of understanding of the difference between reality and the bullshirt you believe.

 

[Snarky Sack]

As opposed to your first post, which demonstrates a lack of understanding of the difference between reality and the bullshirt you believe.

See what I mean Incumbent? You are able to disagree without rancor and personal attack, but that is rare on this board.

 

[Incumbent]

Ah, yeah, I do remember you jumping in the Trump indictment thread with the whatabouthillary stuff. Nobody had ever seen that before so it probably caught some folks offguard…

Did you really pick the name Snarky Sack as your introduction to the community, out of an interest in quality conversations - but then the hooligans here turned on ya real quick? I love the idea of that so much.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Ah, yeah, I do remember you jumping in the Trump indictment thread with the whatabouthillary stuff. Nobody had ever seen that before so it probably caught some folks offguard…

Did you really pick the name Snarky Sack as your introduction to the community, out of an interest in quality conversations - but then the hooligans here turned on ya real quick? I love the idea of that so much.

I picked that name because I do get snarky sometimes. On another board, I told a poster truthfully than in a particular post I wasn't being snarky. he replied, "Yes you were, you snarky sack of shirt!" I found that hillarious and started using the name. When I realized that the name itself was triggering to folks on here (they told me it was), I wanted to change it, but I have to wait. Ironically until July 9, my last day.

I'll change it for one day, I suppose.

I love that you have no response to anything I said, except to admit that you blame me for having a different opinion and to talk about my screen name.

You still say Dave was respectful to me until I earned his disrespect?

In a way you'd be right. But I "earned his disrespect" by having a different opinion from the board's consensus. If I had only agreed with everyone on everything, I'm the response would have been warm and welcoming!

@DaveXA needs to see this, in case he should ever consider having a different opinion on this board.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

See what I mean Incumbent? You are able to disagree without rancor and personal attack, but that is rare on this board.

Saying that your initial post demonstrated a lack of understanding of reality is not a personal attack. It's an honest assessment of what you wrote. In fact, people have repeatedly engaged with you on the topics you broached and rebutted everything you said with supporting evidence. All you have done is deny the veracity of it based upon what appears to be an all-encompassing distrust of the federal government. Despite that, people have actually tried to engage you in honest conversation and are met with either blanket denials of the evidence proffered or nonsensical, hypocritical ramblings that come across as though you don't have the critical thinking skills necessary to participate in rational discussion with the people here.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I picked that name because I do get snarky sometimes. On another board, I told a poster truthfully than in a particular post I wasn't being snarky. he replied, "Yes you were, you snarky sack of shirt!" I found that hillarious and started using the name. When I realized that the name itself was triggering to folks on here (they told me it was), I wanted to change it, but I have to wait. Ironically until July 9, my last day.

I'll change it for one day, I suppose.

I love that you have no response to anything I said, except to admit that you blame me for having a different opinion and to talk about my screen name.

You still say Dave was respectful to me until I earned his disrespect?

In a way you'd be right. But I "earned his disrespect" by having a different opinion from the board's consensus. If I had only agreed with everyone on everything, I'm the response would have been warm and welcoming.

@DaveXA needs to see this, in case he should ever consider having a different opinion on this board.

He does, a fair amount of the time. I've disagreed with him on more than one occasion. The difference is that neither of us acted like a child in the process, as some posters do when they get pushback.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Anyway, what happens to the Republican Party now is this: Trump wins or doesn't win the general election. If we have another eight years of Biden, the nation will revolt against the disaster and the 2028 election will be settled in the GOP primary.

That primary will tell the tale of the future of the GOP. Unfortunately for the Never-Trump establishment types, the Graham/Bush/Cheney/Romney wing, they will be five years older than they already are now and there are few well-known young establishment Republicans.

Therefore, it will be between DeSantis and one or more young relatively MAGA's who will have five more years of experience by then, but will likely have aged well, other than MTG. So the outcome will depend on whether those young MAGA's make the same mistake as Never Trumpers and all join the race against DeSantis or if one of them quickly gains the lead and the others drop out.

If the former, DeSantis will be president. If the latter, then one of the young MAGA's will.

Hard to predict how the congress will swing, since that depends so heavily on how the districts are drawn.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Anyway, what happens to the Republican Party now is this: Trump wins or doesn't win the general election. If we have another eight years of Biden, the nation will revolt against the disaster and the 2028 election will be settled in the GOP primary.

That primary will tell the tale of the future of the GOP. Unfortunately for the Never-Trump establishment types, the Graham/Bush/Cheney/Romney wing, they will be five years older than they already are now and there are few well-known young establishment Republicans.

Therefore, it will be between DeSantis and one or more young relatively MAGA's who will have five more years of experience by then, but will likely have aged well, other than MTG. So the outcome will depend on whether those young MAGA's make the same mistake as Never Trumpers and all join the race against DeSantis or if one of them quickly gains the lead and the others drop out.

If the former, DeSantis will be president. If the latter, then one of the young MAGA's will.

Hard to predict how the congress will swing, since that depends so heavily on how the districts are drawn.

We're waiving term limits and installing Biden as president for life? Yes!

 

[Snarky Sack]

Saying that your initial post demonstrated a lack of understanding of reality is not a personal attack. It's an honest assessment of what you wrote.

By that standard, none of what I have said to any poster on here has been a personal attack. I just honestly arses what they write. Hm. Maybe I'll stay . . .

In fact, people have repeatedly engaged with you on the topics you broached and rebutted everything you said with supporting evidence. All you have done is deny the veracity of it based upon what appears to be an all-encompassing distrust of the federal government.

Yes, if you are using one government allegation as a supposedly factual support for another government allegation, I would only accept that if I thought that the government were being honest and transparent in the matter of the multiple Trump investigations. That would fly in the face of reality.

Despite that, people have actually tried to engage you in honest conversation and are met with either blanket denials of the evidence proffered or nonsensical, hypocritical ramblings that come across as though you don't have the critical thinking skills necessary to participate in rational discussion with the people here.

You take me not immediately agreeing with you as lacking critical thinking skills. You are welcome to that opinion, and to the incredible arrogance it is based on.

 

[Snarky Sack]

We're waiving term limits and installing Biden as president for life? Yes!

After eight disastrous years of Biden, the voters will not put in another Democrat, as I'm sure you understood me to mean.

 

[Incumbent]

See what I mean Incumbent? You are able to disagree without rancor and personal attack, but that is rare on this board.

I picked that name because I do get snarky sometimes. On another board, I told a poster truthfully than in a particular post I wasn't being snarky. he replied, "Yes you were, you snarky sack of shirt!" I found that hillarious and started using the name. When I realized that the name itself was triggering to folks on here (they told me it was), I wanted to change it, but I have to wait. Ironically until July 9, my last day.

I'll change it for one day, I suppose.

I love that you have no response to anything I said, except to admit that you blame me for having a different opinion and to talk about my screen name.

You still say Dave was respectful to me until I earned his disrespect?

In a way you'd be right. But I "earned his disrespect" by having a different opinion from the board's consensus. If I had only agreed with everyone on everything, I'm the response would have been warm and welcoming!

@DaveXA needs to see this, in case he should ever consider having a different opinion on this board.

I didn’t have more to say because I can’t really see where it gets us anywhere. I thought your opening post on the site was littered with some of the same, tired conservative talking-points that have been debated to no end. As much as you like to point out how one poster seems suspiciously like another to you, you come across as just another conservative sucking up to Trump. If this isn’t really some disruptive shtick you have going, and instead these are your genuinely held beliefs, then I can certainly recalibrate the reasons I think you come across the wrong way to more accurately reflect that distinction.

But I honestly don’t think you actually care about any of this.

 

[Snarky Sack]

I didn’t have more to say because I can’t really see where it gets us anywhere. I thought your opening post on the site was littered with some of the same, tired conservative talking-points that have been debated to no end. As much as you like to point out how one poster seems suspiciously like another to you, you come across as just another conservative sucking up to Trump. If this isn’t really some disruptive shtick you have going, and instead these are your genuinely held beliefs, then I can certainly recalibrate the reasons I think you come across the wrong way to more accurately reflect that distinction.

Fine if you think that, but all of that is me giving my opinion, not me being disrespectful to anyone. That's your idea of coming across the wrong way.

But I honestly don’t think you actually care about any of this.

I'm glad to see that you're not defending Dave anymore. I have to say, he has never asked to be defended as far as I know. There are some self-appointed "mamma bears" that do it, but he doesn't ask.

I bear him no ill will. I hope he keeps his work at home job, I really do. I don't disbelieve him that he is very efficient at it.

 

[Incumbent]

Fine if you think that, but all of that is me giving my opinion, not me being disrespectful to anyone. That's your idea of coming across the wrong way.


I'm glad to see that you're not defending Dave anymore. I have to say, he has never asked to be defended as far as I know. There are some self-appointed "mamma bears" that do it, but he doesn't ask.

I bear him no ill will. I hope he keeps his work at home job, I really do. I don't disbelieve him that he is very efficient at it.

First paragraph: I’m not disrespecting anyone.

Rest of post: condescending and disrespectful

 

[efil4]

First paragraph: I’m not disrespecting anyone.

Rest of post: condescending and disrespectful

He is a dumber version of Ricky Bobby.

 

[Incumbent]

He is a dumber version of Ricky Bobby.

Sweet Baby Jesus

 

[cuddlemonkey]

By that standard, none of what I have said to any poster on here has been a personal attack. I just honestly arses what they write. Hm. Maybe I'll stay . . .

Yes, if you are using one government allegation as a supposedly factual support for another government allegation, I would only accept that if I thought that the government were being honest and transparent in the matter of the multiple Trump investigations. That would fly in the face of reality.

You take me not immediately agreeing with you as lacking critical thinking skills. You are welcome to that opinion, and to the incredible arrogance it is based on.

No, I take your inability to follow basic lines of reasoning as proof of your lack of critical thinking skills.