Shofercia wrote:You're actually claiming that Trump's Cult controls the Republican Party, while at the same time claiming that it doesn't control Collins, who's a Republican... And proceeding to defend Cheney, even though her fiscal policies, (ya know, bad fiscal policy, the reason Republicans lost Georgia,) are a death knell for the Populist and Libertarian factions of the Republican Party.
Normally, when people say "we don't want someone who will destroy our power to lead us" - that's a good thing. But because Cheney also said "Orange Man Bad" - she's not being booted for bad leadership, nope, it's all about Trump. At this point I have to wonder, if I shoot a white male and say "Orange Man Bad" am I even going to be prosecuted in a Blue State? Aside from "Orange Man Bad" and its related policies, can you name a single policy that Cheney has that you support?
Please feel free to go back and read my earlier post where I specifically pointed out that there are Republicans who aren't chugging the Trump kool-aid, but are forced to tolerate and encourage the kool-aid chuggers because they represent the bedrock of their base now. Mitch McConnell is one of those people, but because it is all about power, he's not going to throw away a Senate seat he can't get back just to make the cult happy, and will instead try to mollify them by stonewalling Biden on everything and burying the Jan 6th commission and promising to enthusiastically support Trump if/when he wins the nomination in '24.
Also, you really need to get over this, "If you love Liz Cheney so much why don't you marry her!?" trip. No matter how many times you try to insist it's so, I am not "defending" Liz Cheney by pointing out that she was removed from her leadership position because she keeps provoking Trump and his cultists.
You remind me of Trump being angry and confused about why everyone didn't praise him for firing Comey, on the apparent theory that if you don't like someone you must just blindly cheer when something unpleasant happens to them regardless of context or circumstances.
Shofercia wrote:Myrensis wrote:
Your little anecdote about some rando on NS suggesting that 'orange man bad' should banned as political nicknaming.
Ah, so stating facts is bad if it shows Liberals doing bad things. Gotcha. I'll make sure to continue doing that. Also, my point was that it's not the entire Republican Party that's doing X, that's pretty much been the gist of my argument, that you've missed. You actually missed the main part of my argument. That's bad.
So..exactly what I said, trying to use a random liberal on the internet saying something silly to "bothsame" the bad behavior of the elected officials of the Republican Party on the State and National level actively legislating voter suppression and promoting denial of reality.
Thanks for the confirmation.
Shofercia wrote:Myrensis wrote:
"The Republican Justices didn't openly throw the election to Trump by voiding hundreds of thousands to millions of legally cast votes on the basis of a youtube video from EagleFreedomJesusPatriot01, therefore their history of enabling Republican voter suppression and tilting the scales in their favor doesn't count!" -Shofercia logic
Please note that when I parodied your logic, I didn't actually need to come up with utter bullshit like a random YouTube video, which I never claimed was the basis for anything. You're setting up strawmen and knocking them down.
Try to keep up, Shofercia, we're not talking about you, we're talking about the Republican Party. Which is in fact using youtube videos and internet conspiracy theories as the basis for legislation and lawsuits and denying reality in general.
Which is why the Supreme Court shut Trump down, because he and his supporters showed up with a clown car of incompetent lawyers demanding they void an election on the basis of youtube videos and conspiracy theories and "affidavits" from people who just had a gut feeling that something bad was happening.
Shofercia wrote:Myrensis wrote:Thank you for the reminder that when they could do it with a veneer of respectability and legal justification, they did in fact install a Republican President who had lost the vote, but it's a bit counterproductive to your argument.
This is now the third argument that I've made, that you've completely misunderstood, in a row. Nowhere did I claim that Bush v Gore had a veneer of respectability, you just made that up, Myrensis, to buttress your point. Like you made up the YouTube video. Like you pretended that I was claiming that the entire Republican Party was X, when my argument was the exact opposite. This isn't a debate for you, this is verbal combat...
Again, Shofercia, not everything is about you. I was pointing out that the same Supreme Court that gutted the VRA to ease Republican voter suppression efforts also installed Bush as President despite him losing the vote because he brought competent lawyers who were able to make a coherent (though still bullshit) case about stopping a recount, not demanding they brazenly throw out potentially millions of ballots in multiple states on the basis of internet conspiracy theories and Bush's hurt feelings. In response to your insistence that the fact that they sided with Biden somehow negates their track record.
The conservatives on SCOTUS are happy to help their party subvert democracy for partisan gain, but they're very keen about making it look respectable and legitimate, two words that have never shared a zip code with Donald Trump. Greg Abbot and the other Republicans pushing stricter voter suppression measures and rewriting election laws to appease Trump and his delusional supporters on the other hand do know how to look respectable, and how to make coherent arguments about how they're totally just trying to protect the integrity of our elections!
Shofercia wrote:You do realize that people can be removed from positions of leadership for numerous reasons, right? Or does the "Orange Man Bad" argument shine so bright, that everything else is blinded? You clearly only want to talk about the Trump Faction in the Republican Party, ignoring the Populists and the Libertarians. As I've explained to you, repeatedly, the Trump Faction was allowed to remove Cheney because her policies did not coincide with the other, remaining factions within the Republican Party.
When one faction attacks you, and no factions defend you, then you get removed from leadership, since one is greater than zero, and my guess is that she'll probably get successfully primaried. I doubt that Collins will get successfully primaried, even there might be a challenge, but my guess is that Cheney's primary challenger will easily outraise Collins' primary challenger. Going back to the topic at hand, it seems that all Democrats see when it comes to Republicans is the Trump Faction. And that explains a lot of the posts in this thread about the five seceding counties, where the Democrats view the state changers not as farmers and loggers just trying to create a better life for their kids, but as Bundy Insurrectionists.
Well, I have both of the efforts to oust Cheney following her vocal criticisms of Trump and conspiracy theories, and the House Minority Leader being caught on hot mic declaring his intent to remove her and bitching about her refusal to shut up the day after she did so.
You have..a theory that it was actually totally about unrelated policy disputes, on the basis that it has to be that in order for your defense of the GOP to work.
There are only two factions in the Republican Party: The Trump Faction, and the Trump Enablers Faction. People like Collins and Cheney now constitute the lunatic fringe of the party not on any policy basis, but because they refuse to either worship at the altar of Trump or to just smile and nod at the crazies while they do.
The problem is that fairly soon, if not already, that's how the Republicans will view the Democrats, as Clintonite Liars, Obama Promise-Breakers, Biden Corruptionists, and Harris Jailers. And therein lies the rub, of how America becomes more and more divided, since each political party will only see the absolute worse of the other party, as you've so aptly demonstrated. And that's bad.
Thankfully, most Americans aren't buying that cool aid, and are demanding a third party instead: https://news.gallup.com/poll/329639/sup ... point.aspx
You're several decades too late. Trump didn't fundamentally alter anything within the GOP, he is just the culmination of decades of GOP propaganda and conspiracy theories about the evils of government and immigrants, the Clinton body count, Obama the Kenyan, the massive (unprovable) voter fraud that happens in every election that Republicans lose, the climate change hoax, the Democratic plot to turn America into a communist Muslim dictatorship, etc. etc. etc.
Trump wasn't able to hijack the Republican base overnight because of his eloquence and detailed policy plans, he was able to do it because the GOP was the Party of Trump long before Trump himself arrived, he just told them it was okay to let their crazy flag proudly fly instead of putting up pretenses.
