What happens to the Republican Party now? (3 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?

 

[MT15]

All the members of the GOP are required to lie in service to Trump. It’s demanded of them, and they all comply. Sheep.

 

[UriUT]

Hawley's opponent, Kunce, refused to debate him before a moderator that already endorsed Hawley. So what did Hawley do? Be a real creep and stalked Kunce at a state fair. It didn't go well.

 

[faceman]

Hilarious. Inflation is down, gas prices are down, crime is down, jobs are plentiful. Border crossings are less than when Trump left office, we are pumping more oil than ever. So this old chestnut gets trotted out. lol.

best comment.


"I can not tell a lie."- George Washington. "I can not tell a truth."- Donald Trump. "I can not tell the difference."- MAGA.

 

[MT15]

Seeing more and more posts like these. Anecdotal, I know. But it makes me feel better.

 

[Taurus]

Seeing more and more posts like these. Anecdotal, I know. But it makes me feel better.

While I applaud Reg for opening his eyes, he's got a bit of work yet to do in order to fully deprogram himself.
He still buys (and repeats) the myth of the "job creator".
Rich people don't create jobs. Demand creates jobs. Demand largely comes from the middle class.
Ergo, the middle class as a whole are the job creators.

 

[bird]

While I applaud Reg for opening his eyes, he's got a bit of work yet to do in order to fully deprogram himself.
He still buys (and repeats) the myth of the "job creator".
Rich people don't create jobs. Demand creates jobs. Demand largely comes from the middle class.
Ergo, the middle class as a whole are the job creators.

Well, wealth does create jobs BUT…those jobs are a very narrow and select group that caters to the whims and needs of wealth. Jeffrey Faux’s book The Servant Economy: Where America’s Elite is Sending the Middle Class discusses this. Wealth cannot create jobs on a wholesale level.

 

[Optimus Prime]

The Republican ticket of Donald Trump and JD Vance is currently being subjected to well-deserved ridicule, but even if their venture ends in defeat, powerful antidemocratic forces behind them — such as Peter Thiel and Elon Musk — aren’t going anywhere, and Trump’s base won't suddenly melt into nothing. Despite what looks to be their failure (so far) to score with racist and misogynist attacks on Kamala Harris, it’s worth taking a closer look at how two distinct streams of conservative racism have come together this year.

Two recent books I have covered for Salon shed light on these distinct forms. First was David Austin Walsh’s “Taking America Back: The Conservative Movement and the Far Right,” (author interview here), which explains that the “mainstream” conservative movement never rid itself of its fascist element and the "paleoconservatives" who have re-emerged in the Trump era.

The second book is Annalee Newitz's “Stories Are Weapons” (interview here), which features a chapter about how neoconservatives (ideological rivals of the paleocons) tried to make racism great again with “The Bell Curve,” a 1994 book whose style of racist pseudoscience has flourished in Silicon Valley, including among JD Vance’s most significant backers.

I reached out to Walsh and Newitz in an effort to expand our understanding of the present moment, what brought us here and what may lie ahead. What they told me was both simple and complex.

Here’s the simple part: The paleocons can be understood as old-fashioned, antisemitic white nationalists, representing a form of instinctive racist conservatism that resents and resists all change.

The neocons' first intellectual leaders, on the other hand, were Jewish, and their "model minority" assimilation into the conservative movement typified the adaptive dynamic of a more pragmatic conservatism that accepts change and seeks to master it.

Among other things, this involves intellectualizing racism in evolving ways — new bottles, same old whine. Yet at root, both forms boil down to denying the humanity of Black people, Native Americans and Muslims, along with a long list of racial, ethnic and religious "others." The differences are largely about how best to do this.

What makes things more complex starts with what’s new to the news cycle, including the resurgence of "race science" thanks to Vance and his Silicon Valley backers. But as Newitz writes, there’s nothing new about it. The "Bell Curve" moment of the 1990s, as Newitz frames it, was a psyop aimed at both the right's allies and adversaries, historically linked to the "Indian Wars" of the 19th century. By email, Newitz explained that when the U.S. government was waging war against "hundreds of Indigenous nations, [it] worked with churches and other groups to set up residential schools for Indigenous children":

These children were taken away from their families, without consent, and taught English, forced to convert to Christianity and learn "Western" ways of life. The idea was that these children were ignorant, and that there was something defective about the way Indigenous communities taught their children. Their minds, in other words, needed fixing.
This idea, that America's enemies are somehow mentally defective due to poor education or simply inferior minds, has continued into the present. It fits nicely with the history of eugenics and race science, which inform more modern works like “The Bell Curve.” The thread that connects them is the idea that marginalized groups are somehow less intelligent than white people, and that therefore they don't deserve the same privileges as white people. The argument in “The Bell Curve” is aimed at white people, at convincing them that they are inherently superior. If you think about it as a psychological weapon, however, its intent is also to undermine Black people's confidence in their own abilities, and more importantly, to make it harder for them to be taken seriously by white people.

The timing here is worth noting. Writers like Toni Morrison, Alice Walker and Gloria Naylor had decisively smashed white male literary hegemony in the previous decade. Although no one outside the academic world had ever heard the term "critical race theory," it had been developing for almost two decades before “The Bell Curve” was published.

The first two volumes of Martin Bernal's “Black Athena” were published in 1987 and 1991, challenging the received notion of ancient Greece as a distinctively European or "white" civilization. Legal scholar Lani Guinier's influential articles (collected here) advocated for a more inclusive and responsive democracy. That triggered a right-wing backlash after her former college friend Bill Clinton nominated Guinier for a key civil rights post in the Justice Department. Clinton hastily backed away, as did Sen. Joe Biden, who chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time...........

MSN

www.msn.com

Donald Trump and JD Vance: Decoding a double dose of right-wing racism

Old-fashioned "paleoconservative" racism and neocon-flavored pseudoscience, united at last on the 2024 GOP ticket

www.salon.com

 

[Huntn]

The Republican ticket of Donald Trump and JD Vance is currently being subjected to well-deserved ridicule, but even if their venture ends in defeat, powerful antidemocratic forces behind them — such as Peter Thiel and Elon Musk — aren’t going anywhere, and Trump’s base won't suddenly melt into nothing. Despite what looks to be their failure (so far) to score with racist and misogynist attacks on Kamala Harris, it’s worth taking a closer look at how two distinct streams of conservative racism have come together this year.

Two recent books I have covered for Salon shed light on these distinct forms. First was David Austin Walsh’s “Taking America Back: The Conservative Movement and the Far Right,” (author interview here), which explains that the “mainstream” conservative movement never rid itself of its fascist element and the "paleoconservatives" who have re-emerged in the Trump era.

The second book is Annalee Newitz's “Stories Are Weapons” (interview here), which features a chapter about how neoconservatives (ideological rivals of the paleocons) tried to make racism great again with “The Bell Curve,” a 1994 book whose style of racist pseudoscience has flourished in Silicon Valley, including among JD Vance’s most significant backers.

I reached out to Walsh and Newitz in an effort to expand our understanding of the present moment, what brought us here and what may lie ahead. What they told me was both simple and complex.

Here’s the simple part: The paleocons can be understood as old-fashioned, antisemitic white nationalists, representing a form of instinctive racist conservatism that resents and resists all change.

The neocons' first intellectual leaders, on the other hand, were Jewish, and their "model minority" assimilation into the conservative movement typified the adaptive dynamic of a more pragmatic conservatism that accepts change and seeks to master it.

Among other things, this involves intellectualizing racism in evolving ways — new bottles, same old whine. Yet at root, both forms boil down to denying the humanity of Black people, Native Americans and Muslims, along with a long list of racial, ethnic and religious "others." The differences are largely about how best to do this.

What makes things more complex starts with what’s new to the news cycle, including the resurgence of "race science" thanks to Vance and his Silicon Valley backers. But as Newitz writes, there’s nothing new about it. The "Bell Curve" moment of the 1990s, as Newitz frames it, was a psyop aimed at both the right's allies and adversaries, historically linked to the "Indian Wars" of the 19th century. By email, Newitz explained that when the U.S. government was waging war against "hundreds of Indigenous nations, [it] worked with churches and other groups to set up residential schools for Indigenous children":


The timing here is worth noting. Writers like Toni Morrison, Alice Walker and Gloria Naylor had decisively smashed white male literary hegemony in the previous decade. Although no one outside the academic world had ever heard the term "critical race theory," it had been developing for almost two decades before “The Bell Curve” was published.

The first two volumes of Martin Bernal's “Black Athena” were published in 1987 and 1991, challenging the received notion of ancient Greece as a distinctively European or "white" civilization. Legal scholar Lani Guinier's influential articles (collected here) advocated for a more inclusive and responsive democracy. That triggered a right-wing backlash after her former college friend Bill Clinton nominated Guinier for a key civil rights post in the Justice Department. Clinton hastily backed away, as did Sen. Joe Biden, who chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time...........

MSN

www.msn.com

Donald Trump and JD Vance: Decoding a double dose of right-wing racism

Old-fashioned "paleoconservative" racism and neocon-flavored pseudoscience, united at last on the 2024 GOP ticket

www.salon.com

Trump is the focusing lens, his awfulness, incompetence, mental ilness is over looked by wealthy co-conspirators because somehow he attracts masses of broken bad citizens, who are either too stupid and believe his lies, attracted by his racism, by his ridiculous faux Christianity, his promise to take from others and give to them, and other shiney baubles he promises them. Or *they believe the sysytem has failed and are in burn it down mode.
* Former disenfranchised by Capitolism Middle Class.

 

[zztop]

oh no

Loading…

www.politico.com

Republicans on the committees are accusing Biden of two offenses they argue meet the bar for impeachable conduct: abuse of power and obstruction. They’re the same charges that House Democrats cited in the 2019 impeachment against then-President Donald Trump — an inquiry frequently mentioned in the House GOP report.

 

[efil4]

oh no

Loading…

www.politico.com

Republicans on the committees are accusing Biden of two offenses they argue meet the bar for impeachable conduct: abuse of power and obstruction. They’re the same charges that House Democrats cited in the 2019 impeachment against then-President Donald Trump — an inquiry frequently mentioned in the House GOP report.

you know, some poor intern/staffer was tasked with typing up all 300 pages.

Im sure he/she had to be sitting there, typing and reading, and like WTH am i doing here?

 

[bird]

oh no

Loading…

www.politico.com

Republicans on the committees are accusing Biden of two offenses they argue meet the bar for impeachable conduct: abuse of power and obstruction. They’re the same charges that House Democrats cited in the 2019 impeachment against then-President Donald Trump — an inquiry frequently mentioned in the House GOP report.

What a bunch of flocking liars. Comer and Jordan had nothing, proved nothing and ended up spending a bunch of money for no reason.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

oh no

Loading…

www.politico.com

Republicans on the committees are accusing Biden of two offenses they argue meet the bar for impeachable conduct: abuse of power and obstruction. They’re the same charges that House Democrats cited in the 2019 impeachment against then-President Donald Trump — an inquiry frequently mentioned in the House GOP report.

And yet they make no formal recommendations. A waste of time and money. forking idiots.

 

[Huntn]

oh no

Loading…

www.politico.com

Republicans on the committees are accusing Biden of two offenses they argue meet the bar for impeachable conduct: abuse of power and obstruction. They’re the same charges that House Democrats cited in the 2019 impeachment against then-President Donald Trump — an inquiry frequently mentioned in the House GOP report.

Professional projectionists, and despite how bad we all know Trump is, he recently projected his favorite quality on Kamala, that of fascist. You know if he says it, he thinks his dummies will believe it. We just can’t afford to allow this evil, teeth gnasher to finish the job of shredding The Constitution.

 

[Huntn]

And yet they make no formal recommendations. A waste of time and money. forking idiots.

It’s their version of an equivalence argument, to convince the “good folks back home” that our Peice of work is the same as the real Patriot, Joe Biden.

 

[zztop]

It’s their version of an equivalence argument, to convince the “good folks back home” that our Peice of work is the same as the real Patriot, Joe Biden.

I had a similar thought. How convenient they came to the same conclusion/charges as the one with trump

 

[zztop]

Not sure where to put this, but this happened

 

[MT15]

Not sure where to put this, but this happened

That’s who MAGA is. A bunch of thug-wannabes hiding behind keyboards.

 

[Optimus Prime]

I feel this should be brought up more often
============================

Republican vice-presidential nominee JD Vance has accused his Democratic counterpart of “stolen valor,” a term that typically refers to lying about a military service record.
But the actual perpetrators of “stolen valor” in this election are Vance and his party — if not in the military context, then at least in the public service one. Republican politicians have repeatedly claimed credit for valiant actions they didn’t take, pro-family legislation they didn’t support and other popular policies they’re trying to repeal.

For instance, as Democrats celebrated the Inflation Reduction Act’s two-year anniversary last week, Republicans, who unanimously voted against the law in 2022, condemned it and pledged to claw it back. (They’ve already voted a couple dozen times to repeal various portions of it.)

But when it comes to the projects the law subsidized, these same Republicans are big cheerleaders — both for the projects and their own (imagined) role in enabling them.

Most major IRA-funded projects are in Republican-held districts, so the list of triumphs to seize responsibility for is extensive. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (La.) has puffed up wind energy investments in his state. Rep. Nancy Mace (S.C.) has likewise trumpeted an electric vehicle plant and an electric regional transit hub. Rep. Andy Biggs (Ariz.) touted a high-tech battery manufacturing facility. And Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.), who has called global warming “healthy,” has since cheered a solar manufacturing project in her district.

This is hardly the only initiative Republican lawmakers have bogarted credit for despite their efforts to stop it. Last fall, House Speaker Mike Johnson (La.) cheered the expansion of Florida’s Sarasota airport, which he toured with Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.). That project received at least $16 million from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. While some Republicans supported this law, both men voted against it.

Similar examples abound for Republicans who voted against the Chips and Science Act.

Vance was not yet in the Senate when any of these blockbuster bills were enacted. When he ran for office, though, he bashed the infrastructure law as “a total disaster for our country.” He has since appeared to take credit for its funding for the Great Lakes as one of his top “accomplishments” in the Senate. (Maybe he was talking about another Great Lakes bill he is co-sponsoring? That legislation might one day count as a Vance accomplishment, but it has yet to receive a floor vote. A Vance spokesperson did not respond to questions about which bill he was taking credit for.)

More recently, Vance spent the past month defending his “childless cat ladies” remarks by explaining he simply meant Republicans are more devoted to family-friendly policies than Democrats are. Which family-friendly policies should Republicans be so proud of, you ask? Oh, you know: the ones championed and passed by Democrats.

For instance, Vance often says he’s been fighting to expand the child tax credit. But earlier this month, when the Senate voted on a bill to do that, Vance couldn’t be bothered to show up. His Republican colleagues blocked the bill from advancing.

Similarly, in 2021, not a single Republican voted for President Joe Biden’s temporary expansion of the tax credit, which cut child poverty in half..........

Loading…

www.washingtonpost.com