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?

 

[samiam5211]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-democrats-pelosi-election/2020/11/05/1ddae5ca-1f6e-11eb-90dd-abd0f7086a91_story.html

Will the Left Go Too Far?

For the third time in a century, leftists are driving the Democratic Party’s agenda. Will they succeed in making America more equitable, or overplay their hand?

www.theatlantic.com

The far left looks to seize one of the most prominent political jobs in the country

The latest iteration of the movement will face its first citywide test.

www.politico.com

Other than links to other people's thoughts, and a comedian's skit, do you have an arugment?

 

[Paul]

Other than links to other people's thoughts, and a comedian's skit, do you have an arugment?

Sure, the extreme left is hurting the Democrats.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I get!
What they did was despicable. But at the end of the day this was redneck low IQ looting. Nothing was coming out of this. What really irks me is that in front of the world America looked like a 3rd rate banana republic. My brother back home could not believe a bunch of hooligans could so easily invade the capitol. Why was the security so poor? How come the security was tighter for BLM protests?

I am not condoning the act. I am criticizing the abysmal poor security because the police assumed white protesters would not be violent. That is true racism!

No, you are just looking at the far left's demands (that you claim to favor for the most part) and declaring the two sides to be equally dangerous.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

Other than a personal attack. Do you have an argument?

Yes. People shouldn't waste their time engaging with you. It has brought down the entire IQ (I believe in it!) of the board. That's my argument.

 

[Paul]

No, you are just looking at the far left's demands (that you claim to favor for the most part) and declaring the two sides to be equally dangerous.

The extreme right is obviously more dangerous. The extreme left seems more benevolent, but in the 20th century they murdered more people than the fascists. It is what it is bro. It does not mean I am defending right wing fascism.

The extreme left message is always appealing to the masses. I also get that.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

The extreme right is obviously more dangerous. The extreme left seems more benevolent, but in the 20th century they murdered more people than the fascists. It is what it is bro. It does not mean I am defending right wing fascism.

The extreme left message is always appealing to the masses. I also get that.

So can we safely assume that you will stop comparing the two sides since you admit that it's a false equivalency?

 

[Paul]

So can we safely assume that you will stop comparing the two sides since you admit that it's a false equivalency?

They are not the same. At this time the extreme right is more out of touch with reality and based on xenophobia and excessive nationalism. I cannot overstate this anymore. Luckily the civilized world has established a barrier that is not supposed to be crossed ever again and that is white nationalism.

Having said the above I do not give a pass the the extreme left. And sadly we do not have a barrier on the left. It seems the farther left people go the more they are praised.
Lastly I have a question for you guys: Why are you so hostile to a different perspective? That sort of intolerance is dangerous.

 

[Optimus Prime]

You sure love posting the exact same thing multiple times

It used to be the McWhorter video, now it's this Adam Smith quote

Maybe after the sixth time you post it people will concede that you're right

 

[Paul]

You sure love posting the exact same thing multiple times

It used to be the McWhorter video, now it's this Adam Smith quote

Maybe after the sixth time you post it people will concede that you're right

You exemplify the the problem Adam Smith is describing. That is why it is important to state that quote over and over again. I can see why you dislike anything that contradicts your view. Here is another quote for you.

 

[UriUT]

Paging Commissioner Gordon. We need you to send out an Aye/Oye signal. The clown is loost again.

 

[insidejob]

This thread (and, if I'm going to be completely honest, this entire board) has become a perfect example of why people who have internet personas are such an enigma to me. There are tons of them on twitter and Reddit and message boards across all spectrums. People who log on and pretend to be something they're not in real life and it's clearly exposed in their lack of in depth ability to clearly state their position and then back it up in debate/discussion. It's why these people are so frustrating and annoying. Like when Falcons fans join the SSF pretending to be Saints fans because just from being fans of a team in the same division for so long, they can pass as casual fans for a while but they always slip up and show their true colors. The same thing is happening here. Someone can claim to be and really, really WANT TO BE a centrist or moderate in real life, but they're too afraid to actually do it because they've been part of a certain other group for so long that they're afraid of what would happen if they did abandon that group in their relationships with their family and friends who are still 100% on board with the group's platform - or lack thereof.

It's really tiring. I can't prove anything I've just said, but I feel like what I just said is more obvious than this persona's ability to thoroughly explain their position, beliefs, ideas, whatever without resulting to immediately posting links to articles, quotes, memes, etc. rather than just replying directly with their own thoughts, feelings and ideas. And don't forget the trademarked BOTH SIDES!!! that is so prevalent.

It's not something that I would ever consider doing because it just seems like a huge waste of time and energy. In the years that I've been a member on SR - back when politics were intermingled with the rest of the EE board, to the PDB, to this current iteration - I can definitely say that I have learned a lot about politics from much more knowledgeable members than myself and I have changed my stance politically on numerous things. That's a good thing, IMO. I don't come on here with my fingers in my ears wearing wool sunglasses and the intention to not listen to anything that someone who doesn't share my political beliefs has to say, but at the same time, I have gotten to the point where I've learned when enough is enough and certain dead horses have already been beaten to a pulp. Or let's just say that there are members who've proven they'll never budge on anything they think or believe so therefore I'll never be able to gain anything from them. Even then, I don't put them on ignore and I'll still read their posts - I am just a lot less likely to actually engage in discussion with them.

Sorry for the rather off-topic post...just after reading the past few pages that were created since I'd been in this thread last, I couldn't escape the need to post this anymore.

 

[brandon]

This is what you were asked:

Specifically, what is it that you think the progressive wing of the democratic caucus wants that is equally dangerous to what the far right of the Republican Party wants?

This is what you posted.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-democrats-pelosi-election/2020/11/05/1ddae5ca-1f6e-11eb-90dd-abd0f7086a91_story.html

Will the Left Go Too Far?

For the third time in a century, leftists are driving the Democratic Party’s agenda. Will they succeed in making America more equitable, or overplay their hand?

www.theatlantic.com

The far left looks to seize one of the most prominent political jobs in the country

The latest iteration of the movement will face its first citywide test.

www.politico.com

Your WaPo article had this as the only policy I could find:

Privately, Democrats in interviews over the past two days have said the answer is obvious. The party in recent years has moved further left, with some members embracing such liberal ideas as free college, the Green New Deal, eliminating the Senate filibuster and adding justices to the Supreme Court. Many of the House’s rank and file support those policies, though Pelosi and the DCCC have done their utmost to steer the caucus away from those ideas and keep them from advancing in the House.

Your second article listed the following policies:

During the 2016 campaign, Hillary Clinton criticized Sanders’s plan for making tuition free at public colleges.

Booker...introduced legislation to help localities with high unemployment rates offer guaranteed federal jobs.

Democrats could follow Roosevelt’s example and try to pack a recalcitrant Supreme Court.

Your first video referenced an NFL policy. That's a private corporation deciding what they want to do, not leftists making policy decisions.

Your second video referenced an Olympic policy. Ditto.

So I'll ask again: which of those policies you referenced do you believe are equally dangerous to what the far right of the Republican Party wants?

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

The extreme left is mostly problematic as a matter of optics. The extreme right is openly seeking to install an authoritarian dictator and quash all dissent. There is no 'Trump of the left.' Closest thing would be Bernie Sanders and he actually supports the Constitution and would never want to be crowned as dictator.

Until Trumpism is purged from the GOP it is simply not a viable choice for me in any election.

 

[Paul]

The extreme left is mostly problematic as a matter of optics. The extreme right is openly seeking to install an authoritarian dictator and quash all dissent. There is no 'Trump of the left.' Closest thing would be Bernie Sanders and he actually supports the Constitution and would never want to be crowned as dictator.

Until Trumpism is purged from the GOP it is simply not a viable choice for me in any election.

I fully agree, but the libertarian side of me sees liberals that are very willing to have the government take care of them. I understand that animals in the zoo live longer, but i am not so sure they are happier. Or at least----- I would not be happier.

And most left wing programs require some sort coercion.

 

[insidejob]

I fully agree, but the libertarian side of me sees liberals that are very willing to have the government take care of them. I understand that animals in the zoo live longer, but i am not so sure they are happier. Or at least----- I would not be happier.

And most left wing programs require some sort coercion.

Oh, Christ. Back on this coercion thing again? What programs like M4A, free public universities, a living minimum wage would require all of this coercion you always ramble on and on about? Last I checked, damn near 70% of Americans supported all of those things. Left wing programs are not Communism - which would require a hell of a lot of actual coercion.

And, no, liberals are not the ones that are very willing to have the government take care of them. Go pull yourself up a handy dandy map of the US and see where the federal tax dollars go that "take care of the people" and see then, just for kicks, where they come from. It's the polar opposite of what the libertarian side of you sees.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

I fully agree, but the libertarian side of me sees liberals that are very willing to have the government take care of them. I understand that animals in the zoo live longer, but i am not so sure they are happier. Or at least----- I would not be happier.

And most left wing programs require some sort coercion.

There is definitely a very small sect of liberals who want to 'ban everything' and engage in excessive control. But it's nowhere near anywhere close to consuming the Democratic party as Trump has consumed the GOP. The GOP as I once knew it literally does not exist anymore.

 

[Paul]

There is definitely a very small sect of liberals who want to 'ban everything' and engage in excessive control. But it's nowhere near anywhere close to consuming the Democratic party as Trump has consumed the GOP. The GOP as I once knew it literally does not exist anymore.

I disagree, there is a large silent minority that is essentially libertarian and the last thing they want is authoritarianism.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I fully agree, but the libertarian side of me sees liberals that are very willing to have the government take care of them. I understand that animals in the zoo live longer, but i am not so sure they are happier. Or at least----- I would not be happier.

And most left wing programs require some sort coercion.

So the Democratic Party, which is home to the vast majority of nonwhite voters, is just like animals in a zoo. Remember when you said to point out the racist crap you spew? Here it is. Intentional or not, this is exactly it.