The Sewer That Is The GOP: With All The White Supremacists, Conspiracy Nutters, And Other Malicious Whacko Subgroups, How Does It Get Fixed?

[Llevron]

Just now, The Evil Genius said:

What disappointments? We're 5 months to Bidens presidency. 🙄

 

Hey dont let Nostradamus up there get you all twisted up with facts and things lol

 

 

[mistertim]

6 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

What disappointments? We're 5 months to Bidens presidency. 🙄

 

Any and all failures (as seen by Bidens voters) will rightly be placed on a stagnant GOP unwilling to compromise.  

 

I'm going to be disappointed until he forces all Republicans to learn Critical Race Theory from transgender illegal immigrant teachers in BLM shirts.

[hail2skins]

Maybe Rdskns2000 is referring to the more progressive wing of the Dems losing their enthusiasm for moderate Joe.

 

The whole next several years is going to be monopolized by the guessing game of whether Trump will run again in 2024. They need to reinstate his Twitter account so he can again widely show how much of a buffoon he is. True, you do have these "press releases" by him which sort of serve the same purpose, but they don't seem to get the same play. Even though he's always going to command the hardcore MAGAs, of which there are a sizable amount in the GOP, you need to attract moderates to win elections.  Anything which will help ensure he exits the stage in 2024 is a plus. 

[Mooka]

2 minutes ago, hail2skins said:

....you need to attract moderates to win elections.  

 

Hasn't been true for years. Maybe it was never true.

 

Moderate = boring = doesn't get views/clicks/attention/$$$. 

 

If you want attention/money/votes - and those are the same thing btw - you need media coverage. You go by whatever is trending. If Critical Race Theory is trending #1 then that's all that's important. Doesn't matter what it actually is. It could be child sex rings, Q whatever, Donald Trump... same bull****. 

[Califan007 The Constipated]

 

 

[The Evil Genius]

55 minutes ago, Mooka said:

 

Hasn't been true for years. Maybe it was never true.

 

Moderate = boring = doesn't get views/clicks/attention/$$$. 

 

If you want attention/money/votes - and those are the same thing btw - you need media coverage. You go by whatever is trending. If Critical Race Theory is trending #1 then that's all that's important. Doesn't matter what it actually is. It could be child sex rings, Q whatever, Donald Trump... same bull****. 

 

I'd disagree.  A true moderate conservative (if they sill exist) would likely wipe the floor nationally with a hard line leftist like Bernie or squad member.

 

While not exciting as their more progressive party members,  moderate Dems win elections too nationally right now. I suspect it won't be until the Boomers are gone that extreme liberal candidates can win the White House (if even then). 

[Larry]

5 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

I'd disagree.  A true moderate conservative (if they sill exist) would likely wipe the floor nationally with a hard line leftist like Bernie or squad member

I look forward to you explaining that to Hillary. 

[88Comrade2000]

2 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

What disappointments? We're 5 months to Bidens presidency. 🙄

 

Any and all failures (as seen by Bidens voters) will rightly be placed on a stagnant GOP unwilling to compromise.  

If Biden can’t pass anything else; will progressives/Dems be motivated to vote in numbers greater than the gop in 22. 

 

 

[The Evil Genius]

9 minutes ago, Larry said:

I look forward to you explaining that to Hillary. 

 

A totally different situation where the same isn't equal to both sides. I never claimed that a moderate Democrat would wipe the floor with hard line right wing Republicans. I would hope that Trump was the exception...but I suspect modern Republicans are more faithful to their party (**** candidate or not) than Democrats are. 

[88Comrade2000]

2 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

A totally different situation where the same isn't equal to both sides. I never claimed that a moderate Democrat would wipe the floor with hard line right wing Republicans. I would hope that Trump was the exception...but I suspect modern Republicans are more faithful to their party (**** candidate or not) than Democrats are. 

Dems have a long history of that. If Joe runs in 24 and the progressives aren’t happy; I could see them run against Joe.

 

It wouldn’t shock me to see Joe lose the nomination.

[hail2skins]

1 hour ago, Mooka said:

 

Hasn't been true for years. Maybe it was never true.

 

Moderate = boring = doesn't get views/clicks/attention/$$$. 

 

If you want attention/money/votes - and those are the same thing btw - you need media coverage. You go by whatever is trending. If Critical Race Theory is trending #1 then that's all that's important. Doesn't matter what it actually is. It could be child sex rings, Q whatever, Donald Trump... same bull****. 

That's fair. I think my comment was probably too Trump-centric.

 

As mistertim said earlier today, if Trump had publicly handled covid better, he'd still be president today.  He lost in 2020 in large part because people were tired of the social media schtick. I think he won in 2016 mainly because enough people disliked Hillary (and she also ran a complacent campaign).  The bigger story from 2016 was how Trump was able to win the GOP nomination. That to me speaks volumes to how stale the rest of the field (Rubio, Cruz, etc) appeared compared to Trump. 

[Larry]

23 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

A totally different situation where the same isn't equal to both sides. I never claimed that a moderate Democrat would wipe the floor with hard line right wing Republicans. I would hope that Trump was the exception...but I suspect modern Republicans are more faithful to their party (**** candidate or not) than Democrats are. 

 

I was referring to Hillary as a moderate Republican.  

 

[The Evil Genius]

8 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

I was referring to Hillary as a moderate Republican.  

 

 

Touchė. 

[NoCalMike]

When it comes to CRT and related topics,  I never understood what was so hard for for white people, (speaking as an average as average can get white guy) to understand that pointing out and educating people on the specific exploitation and racism directed at minorities is not a way to invalidate their own hard work and/or disadvantages in life, because there are plenty of white people who are dealt a POS situation from birth as well, but if you add having black or brown skin to the equation studies show many of those same obstacles are enhanced or multiplied.  If you operate from that as your thesis and then work your way backwards to show why this is true, it should become pretty apparent how laws and policies from the past still have their tentacles into a lot of society today.  It doesn't mean everything is as bad as 400 years ago, nor has anyone every argued that in the first place. 

 

The way CRT theory is being covered by the right-wing right now it is obvious that they have given up on arguing on any actual issues of substance are are targeting white suburban women with the same ol "those people are looking to corrupt your precious white children"  They have given up trying to argue or debate any of Biden's actual policy and instead it is full-on more of the same nonsense that creeps up every election style that somehow peculiarly has to do with an issue or cause related to people with brown or black skin.   People want to say this isn't a "racist country" however it is pretty telling that these kinds of issues are always what flip those white suburbanites back to voting for Republicans. 

 

The whole hardline vs moderate is going out the window because the GOP/conservative media is pretty much labeling the entire Democratic party hardline and socialist.  Those who believe it are no more likely to vote for Biden than they are Bernie.  Look at 2020, who was actually won over by Biden versus increased turnout to vote for Biden due to fear of another four years of Trump.  Were there some Trump-to-Biden converts?  Sure, but it was far less than we all expected and this was with the Lincoln Project folks going hard at Trump 24/7 for the last few years.   Fact is, until more Republican voters are willing to turn off cable news and logoff the internet, they are not going to be won over by anyone that isn't in the GOP.   This is not to say that Biden as a candidate didn't specifically have some traits that attracted more voters, but I am talking strictly the fantasy that a significant amount of moderate GOP voters had a "I've seen the light" moment and voted Biden.

Edited June 25, 2021 by NoCalMike

[Bang]

1 hour ago, Rdskns2000 said:

If Biden can’t pass anything else; will progressives/Dems be motivated to vote in numbers greater than the gop in 22. 

 

 

A person would have to be an idiot to not see why they have trouble passing anything.
it's because of this impenetrable block of constipated **** called "The Republican Party" that would vote down saving their own mothers from a swarm of sharks because a Democrat said "save them".

Vote 2 of them out of the Senate and things change. Anyone that is not part of that group of fascists who is not 'motivated' by what they are seeing needs to have their head examined.
With a hammer.

 

~Bang
 

[Jumbo]

the evil empress of emails...you can't use her in arguments on the 'mod dem' lane---she's an anomaly in terms of the hate-level she drew for a basically normal enough human...they hate all dems/libs by deault but there are levels of hate and she sat far above any standard  lefty commie pedo politician

 

and i bet some of you would love to see chelsea become potus before all the haters die...and she'd be in a bisexual multi-racial three-way marriage so we'd have a first lady and a first gentleman in the white house at the same time, and then a dem congress changes the name to the black house, and changes every military base's name to whatever dr, cornel west says it should be,  and then it's outlawing any religious talk outside churches (or at least never in the stadium), plus clerics will have to teach crt to congregations before the service takes place, and then it's off to shaming white toddlers before their minds get strong enough to resist

 

ok, i'm in

 

 

[hail2skins]

15 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

the evil empress of emails...you can't use her in arguments on the 'mod dem' lane---she's an anomaly in terms of the hate-level she drew for a basically normal enough human...they hate all dems/libs by deault but there are levels of hate and she sat far above any standard  lefty commie pedo politician

Absolutely. I believe the #1 reason why Trump is so lionized by conservatives is because he was the one who defeated the evil Hillary. A fair number of conservatives still believe that Trump was the only GOP candidate who could've defeated Hillary. On the other hand, I think you also have a fair number (National Review's Andy McCarthy, for one), who concede that the only reason Trump prevailed was because his opponent was Hillary.

 

For example, David Bahnsen wrote a column that was a decent assessment of the Trump presidency. However, one of the things I took issue with was his categorization that a Hillary presidency would've been an "unmitigated disaster," without of course going into specifics of how:

 

Trump Presidency: A Final Assessment, and the Path Forward | National Review

[mistertim]

I'm good with them changing it to the black house as long as they change other things too:

 

[88Comrade2000]

Hillary’s presidency would probably been similar to Bill’s except a more to the left. She probably would lose reelection. Corona under would’ve been handled normally but the right would go hard against her and she would lose a close re-election.

[Jumbo]

1 hour ago, hail2skins said:

Absolutely. I believe the #1 reason why Trump is so lionized by conservatives is because he was the one who defeated the evil Hillary.

 

 

yeah but  

 

he is of course much loved for beating hillary, and with a particular delight accorded him given the contrast between the two at every level and in every way

 

winning against her, and by extension winning over the 'establishment' on both sides, was a broad vindication to them that their whole anti-left worldview was what 'won' over the libs' version...and of course putting down another 'arrogant clinton demonspawn' adds to the taste

 

however, what's really the #1 reason trump is so lionized by those that do is clear enough: he's raised, promoted, blessed and encouraged a variety of mindless, crude, malevolent, racist, crazy, ignorant, angry, stupid, aggrieved, conspiratorial, and other-phobic garbage-thinking and behavior of the sorts that permeates most of the gop base, and has for many years

 

and that's what all those little critters love so much about the trump era and don & fam

 

they finally got to be themselves more openly and way more aggressively, and had nationwide support from top to bottom, no more hiding under rocks and now they are super-pumped and loud and proud in their toxicity

 

(obviously this doesn't apply to never-trumpers)

 

but i think you know this 

 

 

 

 

 

i notice several of us are going ot, which isn't easy to do in some of these threads   but i'll stop.....for now 

[hail2skins]

17 minutes ago, Rdskns2000 said:

Hillary’s presidency would probably been similar to Bill’s except a more to the left. She probably would lose reelection. Corona under would’ve been handled normally but the right would go hard against her and she would lose a close re-election.

I think if the country was doing relatively well under a Hillary presidency, she would've won re-election. Things that would've gone against her would've been her running for a 4th straight Dem WH term in 2020, but her GOP opponent would've had to have been a rock star in the manner of Hillary's husband. I'm not sure who that is on the GOP side.

 

I don't think Biden is going to run for reelection in 2024, and Harris' chances depend on the circumstances of that election. She comes across as a bad politician, and if she has to run just as the sitting VP, even though she'd be the prohibitive favorite for the Dem nomination, I think the GOP nominee would be favored in the 2024 general, hell even if it were Trump.  However, if Joe decides to leave office, say, halfway through this term, and Harris can navigate the country without any major issues, her stock will rise higher in the public's eyes. 

[Burgold]

I think under Hillary we would have seen a death rate similar to some European countries and that loss of life in the thousands would have been hailed as the greatest political failure of all time. Moreover, Hillary's moves to "close down" the country would have been touted as antifreedom and utterly reviled.

 

I'm not sure we would have had vaccines produced as quickly because the death rate would have been so much lower, but I think most would be wearing masks and they would not have become a political rallying cry.

[Long n Left]

6 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

What disappointments? We're 5 months to Bidens presidency. 🙄

 

Any and all failures (as seen by Bidens voters) will rightly be placed on a stagnant GOP unwilling to compromise.  

You’re arguing with the voice of perpetual doom. “It’ll never work.”

[88Comrade2000]

1 hour ago, hail2skins said:

I think if the country was doing relatively well under a Hillary presidency, she would've won re-election. Things that would've gone against her would've been her running for a 4th straight Dem WH term in 2020, but her GOP opponent would've had to have been a rock star in the manner of Hillary's husband. I'm not sure who that is on the GOP side.

 

I don't think Biden is going to run for reelection in 2024, and Harris' chances depend on the circumstances of that election. She comes across as a bad politician, and if she has to run just as the sitting VP, even though she'd be the prohibitive favorite for the Dem nomination, I think the GOP nominee would be favored in the 2024 general, hell even if it were Trump.  However, if Joe decides to leave office, say, halfway through this term, and Harris can navigate the country without any major issues, her stock will rise higher in the public's eyes. 

The only way Harris becomes president before 2024 if Biden dies.  Biden will serve his full term. 

 

Veeps have a good track record in the modern era.

 

Nixon- 60 won the nomination.  He lost in 60 but did become president in 68.

Humphrey- After all the tragedy of 68, he got the nomination but lost the election.

Mondale- In 84, Beat out Gary Hart but lost in a landslide.

Bush-  In 88, Bush got the nomination and won the presidency.

Gore-  In 00, Gore won the popular vote but the Supremes decided he lost the Electoral.

Biden- Ran twice before in 88 and 08 but finally won it all in 20.

 

I think the only Veep that actually ran and wasn't successful was Quayle. I think he ran in either 96 or 00.

 

Harris will have a leg up in 24 or 28; should Joe run for reelection. Thing is, she wasn't a great candidate and I don't think the progressive Dem base will vote for her. After losing out in 16 and 20; the progressives will want their candidate to be the nominee.  Maybe in 24, but by 28 they might have the numbers to do that.  I'm not even sure Joe, if he ran for reelection wouldn't have to face a progressive challenge and wouldn't shock me to see him denied renomination.

[hail2skins]

1 hour ago, Burgold said:

I think under Hillary we would have seen a death rate similar to some European countries and that loss of life in the thousands would have been hailed as the greatest political failure of all time. Moreover, Hillary's moves to "close down" the country would have been touted as antifreedom and utterly reviled.

 

I'm not sure we would have had vaccines produced as quickly because the death rate would have been so much lower, but I think most would be wearing masks and they would not have become a political rallying cry.

I've read stories talking about an excerpt from a new book by some WaPo reporters quoting Trump after the virus saying "don't let it (the virus) dominate your life" as evidence that Trump still didn't take the virus seriously, even after getting it.

 

And I remember at the time he said it, thinking that it actually would've been refreshing if he had made such a statement back in the spring, while at the same time being sober about how important it was to take the virus seriously. 

 

Instead, he jumped on the Fox News bandwagon, highlighting "zero deaths" so far and comparing it to the flu at the start of the week when the proverbial crap hit the fan, which made him appear erratic. And once they started having the task force news conference, him saying how his presence was good for ratings was downright enraging.