/* */

What happens to the Republican Party now? (2 Viewers)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
    MT15

    MT15

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Mar 13, 2019
    Messages
    23,126
    Reaction score
    33,494
    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?



     
    a lot of words basically saying that trickle down is bullshirt
    =======================================
    Two new reports published Tuesday by the Roosevelt Institute argue that robust corporate taxation is key to creating a strong economy and improving the well-being of families and children—objectives that have been undermined in the decades since the Reagan era by regressive tax cuts enacted on the false premise that benefits would "trickle down" to the rest of society.

    The first report, A Mapping of the Full Potential of U.S. Corporate Taxation to Enhance Child and Family Well-Being, examines what the authors describe as the understudied notion that "increasing corporate taxation will necessarily help children and families by providing additional revenue for essential public services."

    That perspective runs counter to what the Roosevelt Institute's second report calls "a 'cut-to-grow' mentality" that rose to prominence in the 1970s and was enthusiastically embraced by the administration of President Ronald Reagan.

    "Under this view, the thinking went, it was necessary to reduce the corporate tax rate to grow the economy—and that this growth would allow gains to eventually 'trickle down' from the rich shareholders to the middle class," the report states. "During this time, the corporate tax rate was gradually reduced to 35% before it was dramatically cut to 21% in 2017. These cuts resulted in corporate tax revenues falling to less than 10% of total federal revenues."...........

     
    Either this is worded extremely badly, or she doesn’t have a clue what she is talking about.

     
    I love the ironic spin on this by republicans

    apnews.com

    Utah joins list of states to pass a bill banning diversity programs in government and on campus

    SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Utah's legislature became the latest in the U.S. to pass a bill Friday prohibiting diversity training, hiring and inclusion programs at universities and in state government.
    apnews.com apnews.com

    “It ensures academic freedom on university campuses where all voices will be heard,” the bill’s Senate sponsor, Republican Keith Grover, said shortly before Thursday’s final 23-6 Senate vote in favor of the bill."
     
    Truer words have never been spoken.



    “For all their talk of "freedom," Republican elected officials are now afraid to speak the truth about Trump & their party. Like those in Russia or North Korea, they whisper the truth to their spouses late at night. They look at their children and see the disapointment in their eyes and try to explain why it has to be this way.

    Look at the face of Tim Scott standing next to Donald Trump as he humiliates him and that is the face of a man who has lost all self-respect. I know these people. I get emails from grown children of former clients asking me what happened to their fathers or mothers. I used to just lie and try to make them feel better, telling them it would pass and their father/mother was still a good person.

    Now I just don't respond. Republican politicians need each other to covince themselves it has to be this way. But it doesn't and in the quiet of the night, when the self-loathing threates to wash over them, they hate what they have become.

    Then they get up the next morning and do it again.

    These are sad, broken men and women who may deserve our pity but not our respect. They are betraying what it means to be an American. History will call them all cowards.”
     
    Far-right Republicans in Congress have pushed the federal government near the brink of shutting down in recent months in their quest to cut the budget. But many of them have also signaled that they do like some federal spending — at least when they’re steering the money to their own districts.

    Lawmakers have long used what are known as earmarks, where members of Congress can request funding for pet projects, to help move spending legislation along. The practice was cut back in 2011 but has since returned, with new rules and more transparency.


    Now a bloc of conservatives in the House — who have loudly opposed several measures to fund the government since the fall — are on track to direct a total of $371.8 million back to their home districts through individual requests. They stand to take credit for federal funding for projects important to their constituents even if they vote against the legislation that includes the money.


    “In the old days, if you got an earmark, you were expected to vote for the legislation. And now the fact that you can get the earmark and at the same time vote against the legislation, appropriators back in the ’80s would have been baffled by that,” said Kevin Kosar, who studies Congress and lawmaking at the center-right American Enterprise Institute…….

    But far-right members of Johnson’s caucus have reacted to that deal and to several short-term government funding laws with fury. The House Freedom Caucus, a group of archconservatives that has antagonized GOP leadership for nearly a decade, called the agreement a “total failure.”


    Yet many of them have also put in earmark requests, according to a Washington Post review of annual spending legislation. Many of those lawmakers justified the requests by pointing to what they said were crucial needs back home.

    They said their opposition to larger underlying bills didn’t conflict with comparatively modest spending for their communities…….

     
    A consequential development of the Trump era is what increasingly looks like the Republicans’ acrimonious divorce from the rule of law.

    The party that once prided itself as the law-and-order side has leaped headlong into highly speculative theories about the “weaponization” of the justice system, spurred by former president Donald Trump. Both Trump and his former lawyer Rudy Giuliani recently flouted civil defamation verdicts against them by continuing to defame their victims — cheered on by many on the right. Republican voters increasingly want a president who is willing to break both rules and laws to get things done.

    But some members of the party have in recent days crossed a new threshold: by suggesting that it’s okay to disregard the Supreme Court.

    After the Supreme Court ruled last week that federal authorities can remove razor wire that Texas put on the U.S.-Mexico border, Rep. Chip Roy (R-Tex.) posted on X, formerly Twitter, that “Texas should ignore it.”

    “It’s like, if someone’s breaking into your house, and the court says, ‘Oh, sorry. You can’t defend yourself.’ What do you tell the court?” Roy separately told Fox News. “You tell the court to go to hell, you defend yourself and then figure it out later.”

    By Friday, Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) had gone on CNN and indicated that it would be okay to disregard the Supreme Court in certain circumstances.

    “We all agree that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land,” Stitt said. “And if the Supreme Court gets something wrong — for example, if they tried to ban and say that we didn’t have a Second Amendment right to bear arms — I think the Constitution supersedes somebody in Washington, D.C., telling us, you know.”

    Stitt didn’t seem to finish the thought (and his office hasn’t responded to a request for comment), but the thrust of what he was saying is pretty clear. Host Jake Tapper’s question was about “whether elected officials should just ignore rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court with which they disagree,” and Stitt’s response was decidedly not “no.”

    Stitt’s comments also came after he had spent a day repeatedly floating a scenario in which members of the National Guard might disobey orders from their commander in chief, the president of the United States. Stitt repeatedly cited the difficult decisions those Guard members would face if President Biden tried to federalize them. (Biden has the authority to do so, though such authority has rarely been invoked, and the White House has not signaled it’s in the works.) Stitt suggested they might be standing on principle by refusing Biden’s orders.

    It’s important to note that, despite the claims of some on the left, what Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) is doing right now doesn’t violate what the Supreme Court ruled.

    The court overturned a ruling that said the federal government couldn’t remove the razor wire, effectively allowing it to do so; Abbott has signaled he’ll continue to have the National Guard lay the wire, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) has rejected the Biden administration’s request for full access to the area.

    Provocative? Yes. Interfering with federal authority? Quite possibly. But directly violating the Supreme Court’s decision? No.

    Roy’s and Stitt’s comments, then, take this debate quite a bit further.

    In some ways, it’s a logical extension of the emerging Republican argument about state sovereignty. Anticipating a federal-vs.-state clash, Republicans have taken to arguing that Texas has the authority to defend itself from those crossing the border illegally.

    But you can also see how we’re getting into dicey territory here. The Supreme Court is the institution we charge with interpreting our Constitution; we now have a sitting U.S. governor and a congressman suggesting it’s okay to ignore what the court says if you have a different interpretation. (Tapper noted to Stitt that Democratic governors could seemingly do the same in restricting gun rights beyond what the court says is constitutional — by arguing that it’s just that important to protect their citizens.)...............





     
    from the notoriously liberal Wall Street Journal
    ===============================

    Meatball Ron has done it. Lyin’ Ted did it years ago. Little Marco too. Maybe Birdbrain will prove to have more cojones than that growing parade of men who once asked us to believe they were leaders but turned out to be sycophants.

    They’ve all endured ritual humiliation at the hands of their master and then bowed and scraped for some small scrap of recognition from him. Some do it grudgingly at first, qualifiedly, until they realize that only complete obeisance will do for Donald Trump. These days they know the safest form of submission is unconditional. The former president will brook nothing but abject fealty, so just get straight to your knees and kiss the ring.

    Say this for Tim Scott: At least he understands it’s all-in or nothing at all. There can have been few sadder displays of human abasement than Mr. Scott’s performance last week. The South Carolina senator rightly likes to make much of his family’s ascent from sharecropper to Congress in a couple of generations. I couldn’t help but wonder what his grandfather would have made of his stepping awkwardly forward at Mr. Trump’s New Hampshire victory party to say the reason he endorsed the former president rather than the South Carolina governor who appointed him to his seat was that “I just love you.”

    The saddest thing is that we all know this Faustian bargain is no such thing. At least Dr. Faustus got 24 years of magic and mischief for his soul. These guys get what? A year or two of not being insulted by the master? A brief respite from the venom of Trump cult members before they get discarded along with everyone else?

    Ask Mike Pence how it works out. Who can forget that cabinet meeting in 2017 when the vice president led the minions in unmanning themselves as they submitted their tribute to the leader? Less than four years later, the president he lionized was expressing solidarity with the mob baying for Mr. Pence’s blood.

    To be fair, we all at times face choices between preserving our opportunities and preserving our dignity. It’s the rare human who never accepts some degree of self-erasure to achieve a larger objective. In the tangled conscience of these men, I am sure there’s a skein of moral logic that leads from their unsightly compromise to some ultimate good...........

    MSN

    www.msn.com

     
    Paxton is SO desperate to end this case and avoid sitting for a deposition. He must be hiding something really big. Trump is trying to improperly influence the case.

     
    MT15 said:
    Paxton is SO desperate to end this case and avoid sitting for a deposition. He must be hiding something really big. Trump is trying to improperly influence the case.

    Click to expand...

    And the TX Supreme Court, all Rs, stayed his deposition. 🤮
     
    SALEM, Ore. (AP) — The Oregon Supreme Court said Thursday that 10 Republican state senators who staged a record-long walkout last year to stall bills on abortion, transgender health care and gun rights cannot run for reelection.

    The decision upholds the secretary of state’s decision to disqualify the senators from the ballot under a voter-approved measure aimed at stopping such boycotts. Measure 113, passed by voters in 2022, amended the state constitution to bar lawmakers from reelection if they have more than 10 unexcused absences.

    Last year’s boycott lasted six weeks — the longest in state history — and paralyzed the legislative session, stalling hundreds of bills.

    Five lawmakers sued over the secretary of state’s decision — Sens. Tim Knopp, Daniel Bonham, Suzanne Weber, Dennis Linthicum and Lynn Findley. They were among the 10 GOP senators who racked up more than 10 absences.

    During oral arguments before the Oregon Supreme Court in December, attorneys for the senators and the state wrestled over the grammar and syntax of the language that was added to the state constitution after Measure 113 was approved by voters.……..



    apnews.com

    Oregon high court says 10 GOP state senators who staged long walkout can’t run for reelection

    2023’s boycott lasted six weeks — the longest in state history — and paralyzed the legislative session, stalling hundreds of bills.
    apnews.com apnews.com
     

    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!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom