Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

future of the Republican party


Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

You say allegiance. I say support. Which term makes the user of the term sound more desperate? Insults (unless they're counter-punches) suggest desperation.

And all Trump has to do is hang on to the 75 million voters that supported him then make sure the next election is fair. That will be possible after the midterms. Republicans should sweep. Providing those midterms are not fixed as bad as the 2020 election was.

So really, the only reason an election can be said to be fair is if your party wins?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 290
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The Republican Party is full of douchebags and sleazoids. Lauren Boebert is no different. They did none of that. China increased its trade deficit. Wall Street made record profits. Big Tech inc

Historical point... Saddam used WMDs on his own people...therefore...he had them. Saddam's VX/Sarin bunkers at Muthanna were captured by ISIS...therefore...they found some. But then, they lo

Justice Clarence Thomas is my new Hero: " In his dissent Justice Thomas argued mass mail-in voting, which was conducted in Pennsylvania for the first time ahead of the

Posted Images

1 hour ago, Infidel Dog said:

No. Only when it isn't rigged.

Like the 2020 presidential election was.

No, it wasn't.  But you seem to think that if Republicans don't sweep the 2022 mid terms, it can only be because the elections are rigged.

Should they not start to do something about it now?

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Have you heard the one about 9/11?

Yes and I heard the one about the Mueller report too.

But this is not that. If the supreme court accepts the election cases it has on it dockets for October you'll find out. 

In the meantime smug posturing of ignorance of the evidence doesn't prove your point.

Edited by Infidel Dog
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Yes and I heard the one about the Mueller report too.

But this is not that. If the supreme court accepts the election cases it has on it dockets for October you'll find out. 

In the meantime smug posturing of ignorance of the evidence doesn't prove your point.

You think the March 04 inauguration is jumping the gun a bit then?

They won't be able to impeach him again until October?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

And all Trump has to do is hang on to the 75 million voters that supported him then make sure the next election is fair.

How's he supposed to do that when he couldn't do it when he was in power and saw it coming in advance?

2 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

That will be possible after the midterms. Republicans should sweep.

How could they possibly sweep when the wondrous Democratic cheat machine can do anything it wants without anyone finding evidence?

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Argus said:

How's he supposed to do that when he couldn't do it when he was in power and saw it coming in advance?

How could they possibly sweep when the wondrous Democratic cheat machine can do anything it wants without anyone finding evidence?

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37673797

 

How's he supposed to do that when he wasn't in power and still won even though they were rigged?  🥴

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

So he was a big baby even back then?

He did the same thing in 2012 when Obama beat Romney too.

 

On election night in 2012, when President Barack Obama was reelected, Trump said that the election was a "total sham" and a "travesty," while also making the claim that the United States is "not a democracy" after Obama secured his victory.

Trump even wrote on Twitter, "We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

This just in...

Could get interesting:

"The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is set to hear a number of high-profile election fraud cases.

The SCOTUS is now scheduled to consider the voter fraud cases for Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia on February 19, 2021.

Justices will hear the cases that allege widespread fraud in the 2020 presidential election.

Among those to be heard are Republican Rep. Mike Kelly's Pennsylvania election case, pro-Trump lawyer Sidney Powell's Michigan election case, and attorney Lin Wood's Georgia election case.

The cases include challenges to the 2020 election results."

https://neonnettle.com/features/1894-scotus-to-hear-election-fraud-cases-for-pennsylvania-michigan-georgia

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

This just in...

Could get interesting:

"The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is set to hear a number of high-profile election fraud cases.

The SCOTUS is now scheduled to consider the voter fraud cases for Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia on February 19, 2021.

Justices will hear the cases that allege widespread fraud in the 2020 presidential election.

Among those to be heard are Republican Rep. Mike Kelly's Pennsylvania election case, pro-Trump lawyer Sidney Powell's Michigan election case, and attorney Lin Wood's Georgia election case.

The cases include challenges to the 2020 election results."

https://neonnettle.com/features/1894-scotus-to-hear-election-fraud-cases-for-pennsylvania-michigan-georgia

Are you sure?  Not saying you're wrong, but I couldn't find confirmation of that anywhere, and the only thing I could find the SCOTUS doing on February 19, 2021 was having a conference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

Are you sure?  Not saying you're wrong, but I couldn't find confirmation of that anywhere, and the only thing I could find the SCOTUS doing on February 19, 2021 was having a conference.

Neon Nettle has received a Pants on Fire from Politifact a mostly false from Snopes so I wouldn't be surprised if it is false but time will tell.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Aristides said:

Neon Nettle has received a Pants on Fire from Politifact a mostly false from Snopes so I wouldn't be surprised if it is false but time will tell.

They may have jumped the gun a bit. They link to this from the Washington Examiner, February 05/

"The Supreme Court on Friday listed several high-profile election lawsuits for consideration at its mid-February conference.

The cases include challenges to the 2020 election from Trump-aligned lawyers Lin Wood and Sidney Powell, as well as Republican Rep. Mike Kelly's Pennsylvania lawsuit. Nearly every lawsuit takes issue with the expanded use of mail-in ballots by many states.

The decision came after the court declined to fast-track all election-related litigation in early January."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/supreme-court-election-challenge-february

I'm not sure I see the certainty there that NN saw.

As to Snopes and Politifact there needs to be fact checkers to fact check those guys. Too often they seem to be full of crap. Biased as Hell too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

This just in...

Could get interesting:

"The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is set to hear a number of high-profile election fraud cases.

The SCOTUS is now scheduled to consider the voter fraud cases for Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia on February 19, 2021.

Justices will hear the cases that allege widespread fraud in the 2020 presidential election.

Among those to be heard are Republican Rep. Mike Kelly's Pennsylvania election case, pro-Trump lawyer Sidney Powell's Michigan election case, and attorney Lin Wood's Georgia election case.

The cases include challenges to the 2020 election results."

https://neonnettle.com/features/1894-scotus-to-hear-election-fraud-cases-for-pennsylvania-michigan-georgia

LMAO !  Don’t let your past 50+  legal failures discourage you, THIS TIME you’ll win!

 

Some suckers never learn 

image.gif.abc9e7c4b81c2169f111b93d708e2a56.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the topic though. The future of the Republican Party is that it will continue to resort to anti-democratic thug tactics in order to serve its wealthy elite clientele because it is increasingly unpopular  Consider the following:

 

“The Republican Party of the past won elections by persuading most Americans that it would do a better job than Democrats of running the country. Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon and Dwight Eisenhower each won at least 57 percent of the vote in their re-election campaigns. George W. Bush won 51 percent, largely by appealing to swing voters on national security, education, immigration and other issues. A party focused on rebuilding a national majority probably could not stay tethered to Trump.

But the modern Republican Party has found ways other than majority support to achieve its goals.

It benefits from a large built-in advantage in the Senate, which gives more power to rural and heavily white states. The filibuster also helps Republicans more than it does Democrats. In the House and state legislatures, both parties have gerrymandered, but Republicans have done more of it. In the courts, Republicans have been more aggressive about putting judges on the bench and blocking Democratic presidents from doing so. In the Electoral College, Democrats currently waste more votes than Republicans by running up large state-level victories.

All of this helps explain Trump’s second acquittal. The Republican Party is in the midst of the worst run that any party has endured — across American history — in the popular vote of presidential elections, having lost seven of the past eight. Yet the party has had a pretty good few decades, policy-wise. It has figured out how to succeed with minority support.

Republican-appointed justices dominate the Supreme Court. Republicans are optimistic they can retake control of both the House and the Senate next year (even if they win fewer votes nationwide). Taxes on the wealthy are near their lowest level in a century. Democrats have failed to enact many of their biggest priorities — on climate change, Medicare, the minimum wage, preschool, gun control, immigration and more.”

Link to post
Share on other sites

“Compassionate Conservatism” at work LMAO

In conservative paradise, government’s job is to do absolutely nothing, even during a state of emergency, except tweet out drunken rants berating and mocking those in need.  Yet more evidence of the right-wing shitholes the Red states have become  

 

Texas mayor tells residents to fend for themselves during power outage: ‘Only the strong will survive’
 

By Tuesday morning, the residents of Colorado City, Tex., were getting anxious. More than 24 hours had passed since a deadly Arctic blast knocked out power across the state, leaving them without heat or electricity in below-freezing temperatures. To make matters worse, many also lacked running water, forcing them to haul in heavy buckets of snow each time they needed to flush their toilets.

Residents turned to a community Facebook group to ask whether the small town planned to open warming shelters, while others wondered if firefighters could do their job without water. But when Colorado City’s mayor chimed in, it was to deliver a less-than-comforting message: The local government had no responsibility to help out its citizens, and only the tough would survive.

“No one owes you [or] your family anything,” Tim Boyd wrote on Tuesday in a now-deleted Facebook post, according to KTXS and KTAB/KRBC. “I’m sick and tired of people looking for a damn handout!”
 

Boyd’s tirade, which also demanded that “lazy” residents find their own ways of procuring water and electricity, immediately drew backlash. Later on Tuesday, Boyd announced his resignation and admitted that he could have “used better wording.”

The controversy highlighted how one of the worst winter storms in decades is testing the limits of the embrace of self-sufficiency and rugged individualism in Texas. The state’s decision to skirt federal oversight by operating its own power grid is one of the main reasons that close to 3.3 million residents in Texas still lacked electricity by early Wednesday morning, while outages in other hard-hit states had dwindled to less than one-tenth of that size. As of late Tuesday, grid operators still couldn’t predict when the lights might turn on, and advocates were warning that Texas’s poorest and most vulnerable residents were at risk of freezing to death. At least 10 deaths in Texas have been linked to the winter storm since Monday, according to the Houston Chronicle. 

The failure to deliver basic services has angered countless Texans, including top-ranking elected officials. But in Colorado City, Boyd rejected the notion that municipal governments or utility companies had any obligation to provide paying customers with necessities like heat and running water during a catastrophic winter storm.

 

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/02/17/texas-mayor-power-outages-colorado/%3foutputType=amp

Edited by BeaverFever
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2021 at 3:21 AM, Infidel Dog said:

They may have jumped the gun a bit. They link to this from the Washington Examiner, February 05/

"The Supreme Court on Friday listed several high-profile election lawsuits for consideration at its mid-February conference.

The cases include challenges to the 2020 election from Trump-aligned lawyers Lin Wood and Sidney Powell, as well as Republican Rep. Mike Kelly's Pennsylvania lawsuit. Nearly every lawsuit takes issue with the expanded use of mail-in ballots by many states.

The decision came after the court declined to fast-track all election-related litigation in early January."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/supreme-court-election-challenge-february

I'm not sure I see the certainty there that NN saw.

As to Snopes and Politifact there needs to be fact checkers to fact check those guys. Too often they seem to be full of crap. Biased as Hell too.

So none examining actual voter fraud. Just the "potential" for fraud by allowing people to vote during a global pandemic. This is well worn track by now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...