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?

 

[Snarky Sack]

First paragraph: I’m not disrespecting anyone.

In what you talked about, I was not.

Rest of post: condescending and disrespectful

Yes, giving back what I get.

There's no crying in message board posting.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

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

You don't like us putting words in your mouth so I took you at face value, especially since you seem to be keen on good grammar and clear communication.

 

[Snarky Sack]

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

You said that already. It becomes nagging when you are so repetitive.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

You said that already. It becomes nagging when you are so repetitive.

You made a false assertion. I corrected you. If you don't want to be corrected so often, stop saying false things.

 

[Snarky Sack]

You made a false assertion. I corrected you. If you don't want to be corrected so often, stop saying false things.

I have a better idea.

 

[Taurus]

I have a better idea.

Damned if this doesn't make me immediately think of a certain Zappa song.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Damned if this doesn't make me immediately think of a certain Zappa song.

Which one?

I cannot guess.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Here is a screen shot of my very first post:

Here's Snarky Sack's first post using the easier to verify board quoting system:

I've seen these ideas from many Democrats, that Republican leaders secretly are happy for Trump to be indicted since it serves their own political ends. They are correct about that.

I keep waiting for them to connect the dots that it is not only Republicans, but also Democrats who of course would benefit politically from a Trump conviction that bars him from office. That includes the Republicans and Democrats in charge of the DOJ and the FBI. Do they really believe that the Republicans are evil and completely politically motivated, while the Democrats are just these white knights interested only in truth, justice and all that stuff?

When Hillary kept thousands of classified documents and refused to return them, eventually physically destroying servers and devices, she was not indicted even after James Comey listed her crimes in front of the nation. Clinton was the epitome of the Washington establishment, much more so that Bill.

Get rid of Trump and get back to business as usual is the goal. I believe that it was his talk of stopping the killing in Ukraine in 24 hours that was the last straw. The killing in Ukraine is very lucrative, and now there is talk of more tanks and planes. Trump would barbecue that cash cow, and that would be bad for the sponsors of the two parties.

Here are the only two actual responses to Snarky Sack's first post:

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

In case you want to understand the political hit job by Bannon and the right wing media sphere on Hillary Clinton. We know uranium one isnt true. While you birch about Hilary's private server, pence, Jared, Ivanka and practically all of trumps admin using Whatsapp and other private communications etc. Hilarys server was what Powell advised that she should do as most dc politicians did then.

Edit no she didn't keep thousands of top secrets on her servers

Now here's a screenshot, followed by a board quote, of Snarky Sack's second post on this board. Pay particular attention to the highlighted screen name and the parting comment of Snarky Sack's post:

I'm wondering what the hope of Trump opponents is for this. I know that ultimately they would like to see him imprisoned or even given the death penalty, but I mean realistically. Is it for him to be convicted of a felony before the 2024 election? That has to be the goal, right? It is very unlikely.

The documents investigation has so far been like a chess game in which White not only gets the first move, but then gets as many unanswered moves as it likes until it puts Black in check. Trump has been able to take little legal action, while the DOJ/FBI works on witnesses, digs through documents, plans its strategies, and unlawfully feeds its versions of events to CNN et al.

To torture the metaphor further, they have now put Trump in check by indicting him. Great for several days of headlines, but now Trump is allowed to make moves of his own.

Cut to the chase, Trump not only has moves, he has time on the clock. He can't take as much as he likes, but he can take plenty for his purpose, which is to not be convicted before November of 2024, or before he takes office in January 2025. That happens, he simply grants himself a pardon for all conceivable crimes and the purge of the Entrenched Bureaucracy begins.

It took almost ten months from the Mar-a-Lago raid to the indictment. They have used up more than a third of the time they had between the raid and the election.

Trump has a friendly judge in charge of his case now and several friends at the Supreme Court who will likely decide every appeal of every motion that Trump's expensive lawyers throw up.

Popcorn time!

The "insults" of Snarky Sack started only after Snarky Sack ended their second post on this board with "Popcorn time!" and after they chose "Snarky Sack" as their screen name and after they started being condescending to others.

Just setting the actual chronology of events straight and true.

 

[Taurus]

Which one?

I cannot guess.

It's from Joe's Garage, thus NSFW as hell.

Stick It Out is the song and no, I can't link it.

 

[nolaspe]

Lol, the 3-toed magatwat-faced traitor got kicked out of the 'freedumb kkkaucus' LMAO...

 

[DaveXA]

Here's Snarky Sack's first post using the easier to verify board quoting system:



Here are the only two actual responses to Snarky Sack's first post:




Now here's a screenshot, followed by a board quote, of Snarky Sack's second post on this board. Pay particular attention to the highlighted screen name and the parting comment of Snarky Sack's post:

The "insults" of Snarky Sack started only after Snarky Sack ended their second post on this board with "Popcorn time!" and after they chose "Snarky Sack" as their screen name and after they started being condescending to others.

Just setting the actual chronology of events straight and true.

Yeah, came in with trollish approach and has the gall to ask why he got the response he did. Eh, I have no doubt he's done this before.

And what's funny is he got offended enough by my posts to put me on ignore rather than actually respond to my posts. I stand by them because they're all true. Is he a Trumper? Yes. He knows why docs are redacted but makes excuses? Yes. He thinks Trump is above the law and what he did was no big deal. Yeah, sure sounds like it the way he defended him from the start. And it's true, acting like equal justice under law and standards don't exist won't help his argument. And he does know better.

Not sure what isn't true and there's really no direct insult there. Just saying what I saw at the time.

 

[DaveXA]

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:








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 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.

Just to be clear, I didn't engage with you at that point because we hadn't actually started talking to each other yet.

And the funny thing is, I directed zero personal attacks before you put me on ignore. Never directly insulted you and never actually talked to you at that point.

You joined the board with Snark in your name, said you're getting out the popcorn and sure sounded like you were just here to stir the pot rather than have a good-faith debate of the issues. What am I supposed to think at that point?

 

[DaveXA]

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.

It's been said before and I guess I need to say it again, you're not getting pushback for having a different opinion. A lot of us disagree on key issues. To my core, I'm a conservative. I'm not a Republican, and I'm definitely someone who cannot stand Trump, and that's consistently been the case since the 80s. I have disagreed with posters here about a whole host of issues, and while it has gotten testy on occasion, we always treated each other with respect.

You're getting a lot of grief because you support Trump, specifically. Our prior experiences with Trumpers who have been on this board has been universally bad. You're really one of the only ones who have stayed as long as you have.

Sorry, but with Snark as a name and starting posting the way you did, you're the one who has to earn respect. Not the other way around.

 

[MT15]

I'm on my one week I get during the summer

Dude, we’re not stupid. You joined this board on June 9th. You’ve been posting at a very high rate of frequency ever since.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Here's Snarky Sack's first post using the easier to verify board quoting system:



Here are the only two actual responses to Snarky Sack's first post:




Now here's a screenshot, followed by a board quote, of Snarky Sack's second post on this board. Pay particular attention to the highlighted screen name and the parting comment of Snarky Sack's post:

The "insults" of Snarky Sack started only after Snarky Sack ended their second post on this board with "Popcorn time!" and after they chose "Snarky Sack" as their screen name and after they started being condescending to others.

Just setting the actual chronology of events straight and true.

Wow.

I didn't include my second and third posts because to me they seemed as free of personal insults as the first one, so why be repetitive and drive the point home.

In fact, they still seem that way. Not one thing in that post is a personal insult to any individual poster on this board, nor to posters in general. I did say that Trump opponents would like to see him imprisoned and even given the death penalty. Nothing but true from what I've seen on and off this board.

But you say "popcorn time" is the meanness really set people off?

Praise Allah, then that I waited until now to say that this board has the flakiest snowflakes I've ever seen in my life.

Clear up the record for you my reneging friend, "popcorn time" means nothing more than "we're about to see a show." No personal insult to you was intended at that time.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Yeah, came in with trollish approach and has the gall to ask why he got the response he did. Eh, I have no doubt he's done this before.

And what's funny is he got offended enough by my posts to put me on ignore rather than actually respond to my posts. I stand by them because they're all true. Is he a Trumper? Yes. He knows why docs are redacted but makes excuses? Yes. He thinks Trump is above the law and what he did was no big deal. Yeah, sure sounds like it the way he defended him from the start. And it's true, acting like equal justice under law and standards don't exist won't help his argument. And he does know better.

Not sure what isn't true and there's really no direct insult there. Just saying what I saw at the time.

I didn't respond to your substance-free childish insults, no. You forgot to mention that your posts were not replies to me, but replies to other posters who replied to me. You were literally the little guy standing beside the bully saying "yeah!" LoL, I typed that before I even noticed that you had done that again in this post.

Not a good look. I see why you like your work-at-home job. No chance of any colleague or supervisor walking past you at the pool and seeing how hard you "work" during work hours.

I ignored you precisely because your posts were not worth responding to and were a distraction. When I took you off ignore, you had grown up a little, at least enough to address me directly, so I did respond to you. If you go back to being everyone's sidekick, back to ignore land you go.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Lol, the 3-toed magatwat-faced traitor got kicked out of the 'freedumb kkkaucus' LMAO...

Thank you for posting about the future of the Republican Party.

MTG has had her moments, humiliating Democrats like Jamie Raskin.



But that is like shooting fish in a barrel. Going after fellow and sister Republicans means going after people of substance and it hasn't worked out well for her.

Her voters like her, though, and the GOP will play nice again when election time comes rather than risk losing her seat. If she is smart, she will take the olive branch and start working to convince Republicans to be Republicans again.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Just to be clear, I didn't engage with you at that point because we hadn't actually started talking to each other yet.

You were waiting for a formal introduction?

That may be the lamest excuse I've seen on any message board.

And the funny thing is, I directed zero personal attacks before you put me on ignore. Never directly insulted you and never actually talked to you at that point.

That is a flat lie, given the examples I posted.

You joined the board with Snark in your name, said you're getting out the popcorn and sure sounded like you were just here to stir the pot rather than have a good-faith debate of the issues. What am I supposed to think at that point?

We're not going to get past my name are we?

I had this issue before on a board on which my screen name was "Buck Ofama." The snowflakes their couldnt' let it go. I changed my name to "Generic Login" to assuage them. I try to minimize the personal attacks any way I can. Notice that "Buck Ofama" cannot possibly be an insult against a poster. I'll make the same change in two days, if I'm able.