The Trump Riot Aftermath (Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes found guilty of seditious conspiracy. Proud Boys join the club)

[@DCGoldPants]

Enemy of my enemy, yadda yadda yadda. Even if you believe in redemption stories. We know these two are looking at their next acts. Kinz will probably go to TV. Liz I believe thinks she will be the leader of a future Neocon revolution to take back her party if she can destroy the MAGA takeover. 

 

Also, I don't care. Succeed at this with them and then deal with what comes next. Even if you are thinking two steps ahead. You can't make the move until you make this one. And right now, they are useful. 

[@DCGoldPants]

 

 

 

[tshile]

Yeah never underestimate liberals ability to step on their own dick 

 

going after those two because they’re *gasp* actual conservatives that disagree with them on standard policy issues, like many people do is this country, is like the Bernie bros voting for trump or staying home cause Clinton stole the nomination. 
 

 

[The Evil Genius]

20 minutes ago, tshile said:

Yeah never underestimate liberals ability to step on their own dick 

 

going after those two because they’re *gasp* actual conservatives that disagree with them on standard policy issues, like many people do is this country, is like the Bernie bros voting for trump or staying home cause Clinton stole the nomination. 
 

 

 

Fwiw Cheney accused, on video,  Democrat politicians of murdering babies after they were born.

 

It's not boo this conservative for being conservative. It's boo Cheney for being a bat**** insane conservative who is only slightly less worse than the incel maga booger eating asshats. 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

So folks really think Kinzinger’s master plan in all this was to get a gig as a CNN conservative stooge?

 

I had some business dealings with Kinzinger and he is clean as a whistle.  For a politician, he might as well be a saint.  An Air Force vet currently in the National Guard, goes against 99% of what his party worships, facing death threats as a result, won’t bother seeking re-election….all for some cushy studio gig.  
 

Sure.

 

 

 

 

[tshile]

10 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

Fwiw Cheney accused, on video,  Democrat politicians of murdering babies after they were born.

 

It's not boo this conservative for being conservative. It's boo Cheney for being a bat**** insane conservative who is only slightly less worse than the incel maga booger eating asshats. 

which revolves around a hypothetical of what should be done with a baby that is born, alive, after a failed abortion. 
 

yeah I would expect conservatives that are pro-life, to have a problem with that. that’s a pretty extreme example and you now have a child that is living, outside the womb, and this idea of “trying to decide what to do”. 
 

which is my point. You take what is a perfectly reasonable policy issue, and turn it into extremism. When you do that, the natural reaction for people who disagree with you, is to turn to extremism in the other direction. Instead of accepting this basic human behavior, and trying to work through incredibly charged topics (abortion itself is a messy topic, but specifically what to do with a baby living outside the womb after a failed abortion even more so), you do what you always do and declare them evil/awful people 

 

Your best case for ‘24 is someone like Cheney or Kinzinger winning the nomination. Your worst case is someone like Trump, DeSantis, or Cruz. 
 

when you act this way, you’re pushing people toward the later. 
 

it is in your best interest to at least accept standard policy disagreements as reasonable and work within that framework, than it is to do what you’re doing. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

Dems would be smart to listen to some GOP members and using it to learn how to fight.  God knows Dems could use it.

 

Edited July 6, 2022 by The Almighty Buzz
Typo

[@DCGoldPants]

 

 

 

[The Evil Genius]

20 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

So folks really think Kinzinger’s master plan in all this was to get a gig as a CNN conservative stooge?

 

I had some business dealings with Kinzinger and he is clean as a whistle.  For a politician, he might as well be a saint.  An Air Force vet currently in the National Guard, goes against 99% of what his party worships, facing death threats as a result, won’t bother seeking re-election….all for some cushy studio gig.  
 

Sure.

 

That doesn't match up with this.

 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/adam-kinzinger/

 

Voted 90.2% of the time with Trump's position. Which was, as estimated, about 3.6% more than expected. 

[hail2skins]

17 minutes ago, tshile said:

Your best case for ‘24 is someone like Cheney or Kinzinger winning the nomination. Your worst case is someone like Trump, DeSantis, or Cruz.

Was reading a blog entry yesterday in which the author opined (and I disagreed) that if in the unlikely event Mike Pence were to somehow get the GOP nomination in 2024, that it would basically serve to reelect the Dems, because enough Trump supporters would stay home and not vote for Pence because of J6.

 

Like I said, I disagreed, but that fact that this mindset is out there is insane.

 

That said, I don't see any way anyone like Cheney or Kinzinger has any shot in hell in 2024. You're looking at Trump or DeSantis, and right now the Dems appear in disarray.  Even if inflation gets solved, Biden's age will be a major liability. Harris has to be the least-regarded VP since Dan Quayle.  Does Newsom run?

 

 

[tshile]

4 minutes ago, @DCGoldPants said:

 

 

 

challenging it is pretty standard for someone that doesn’t want to testify (for whatever reason)

 

I find it interesting they didn’t really challenge it on the merits of the subpoena or his role, but instead on the idea that information is shared with a different (federal, for lack of a better description?) hearing/case going on

 

i wonder how much that actually matters. I could see it going either way… but I would also expect they furnish some sort of “proof” that this is going on the way they claim?

[@DCGoldPants]

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

Yeah never underestimate liberals ability to step on their own dick 

Speaking strictly from my own personal experience, this is a constant struggle.

[@DCGoldPants]

1 minute ago, hail2skins said:

Was reading a blog entry yesterday in which the author opined (and I disagreed) that if in the unlikely event Mike Pence were to somehow get the GOP nomination in 2024, that it would basically serve to reelect the Dems, because enough Trump supporters would stay home and not vote for Pence because of J6.

 

Like I said, I disagreed, but that fact that this mindset is out there is insane.

 

That said, I don't see any way anyone like Cheney or Kinzinger has any shot in hell in 2024. You're looking at Trump or DeSantis, and right now the Dems appear in disarray.  Even if inflation gets solved, Biden's age will be a major liability. Harris has to be the least-regarded VP since Dan Quayle.  Does Newsom run?

 

 

 

let's be honest. If Trump runs again and doesn't get the Nom. He'll go scorched earth on whoever the Nom is with his supporters. If he isn't running and the Nom doesn't recognize him as the leader of the party, and thus, their boss even if they were to win. He'll go scorched earth on whoever that is too. 

[tshile]

1 minute ago, hail2skins said:

That said, I don't see any way anyone like Cheney or Kinzinger has any shot in hell in 2024

Yeah same, hard to see how when the GOP has gone after them so hard. They sanctioned her (and him?) and stripped her of committee/leadership roles. So it’d be really weird for her to win (or even run, in my opinion…)

 

But I content the best thing for everyone is people closer to “moderate” run, as a general rule. Especially for president where the role is presiding over the process of running the country (and not actually enacting legislation…)

 

So when I see this criticism it makes me laugh. I think it’s counter productive to the people making the criticism. 
 

 

8 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

Voted 90.2% of the time with Trump's position. Which was, as estimated, about 3.6% more than expected. 

I always find these comments sort of… meaningless. 
 

how often people vote with others, without context on what they’re voting on, means nothing. 
 

generally speaking I would expect most party members to have a high % or times they vote the same as others in their party. 
 

In fact I’d find it odd if they didn’t. 

[The Evil Genius]

Well it did list some of his votes and Trump's positions, so maybe click the link and see? 🤔

 

For example,  he supported the Trump no position on H.R.4447 - Clean Economy Jobs and Innovation Act.

 

He also supported the USPS Trump killing of the USPS. 

 

Again, click the link and see where he and Trump differed..it wasn't that often. 

Edited July 6, 2022 by The Evil Genius

[Ball Security]

7 minutes ago, hail2skins said:

Was reading a blog entry yesterday in which the author opined (and I disagreed) that if in the unlikely event Mike Pence were to somehow get the GOP nomination in 2024, that it would basically serve to reelect the Dems, because enough Trump supporters would stay home and not vote for Pence because of J6.

 

Like I said, I disagreed, but that fact that this mindset is out there is insane.

 

That said, I don't see any way anyone like Cheney or Kinzinger has any shot in hell in 2024. You're looking at Trump or DeSantis, and right now the Dems appear in disarray.  Even if inflation gets solved, Biden's age will be a major liability. Harris has to be the least-regarded VP since Dan Quayle.  Does Newsom run?

 

 

In 24, no.  But in 28, I could see those two plus Paul Ryan and Larry Hogan as the national leaders of the party.

 

The Dems will need to figure out who to run in ‘24.  Newsom could be that guy.  It’s a ways off though.  Imagine that laughter someone would receive if they said Trump would win the election in the summer of ‘14.

[tshile]

I mean for ****s sake this is what Kinzinger “agreed with trump” on:

increasing Covid aid from 600 to 2000

The pandemic aid bill

Some clean energy bill (stance was against)

suing officials for descrimination in specific instances (position was against)

the list goes on. 
 

they need to weight each individual item, and have the score reflect how much the agreement/disagreement matters

 

 

disagreeing with trump on the election stuff, is a way bigger item, than agreeing with him on not expanding ACA funding. 
 

the entire measurement is completely meaningless. 

3 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

Well it did list some of his votes and Trump's positions, so maybe click the link and see? 🤔

Yeah, I did. Did you?

[The Evil Genius]

This reminds me of the argument that libertarians here have when they try to tell people they aren't republican even though they vote republican 95% of the time. 

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

23 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

That doesn't match up with this.

 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/adam-kinzinger/

 

Voted 90.2% of the time with Trump's position. Which was, as estimated, about 3.6% more than expected. 

I made no mention of how or what he voted on, only that he's financially clean as a whistle, a military vet, and still enlisted in the national guard.  While I may disagree with some of his politics, it would be unfair to suggest that what he's done is merely a ploy to get him a gig on liberal news networks.  It doesn't even make sense, considering all the money is in grifting with Trump.

 

 

Edited July 6, 2022 by BatteredFanSyndrome

[mistertim]

25 minutes ago, @DCGoldPants said:

 

 

This is good to hear but I'll never understand how some people can get away with this stuff:

 

Quote

The session will be videotaped, but there will be some limits on what he will testify to regarding direct conversations with former president Donald Trump.

 

If you get a legal subpoena to testify about something, why exactly do you get to negotiate what you will or won't talk about? It's a ****ing subpoena, not a lunch invitation.

[tshile]

21 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

This reminds me of the argument that libertarians here have when they try to tell people they aren't republican even though they vote republican 95% of the time. 

People who have a basic understanding of statistics, understand the problem with not weighting the items being measured in a way to reflects the actual argument that’s trying to be made. 
 

🤷‍♂️ 

[88Comrade2000]

The odds are very strong the gop wins in 24, whether it's Trump, Desantis or Satan. The EC favors the gop. The Dem candidate is saddled with Biden record.

[tshile]

9 minutes ago, mistertim said:

you get a legal subpoena to testify about something, why exactly do you get to negotiate what you will or won't talk about? It's a ****ing subpoena, not a lunch invitation.

Because they have the right to challenge it, legally, and it’s a long process. So, there’s a trade off that has to be examined by everyone involved. 
 

if you don’t want to agree to the accommodations, and deal with them challenging the subpoena, then you can go that route. 
 

if they agreed to the accommodations then I expect that means they view this as better than dealing with the challenge (which they may think there’s a chance they could lose it…)

[The Evil Genius]

20 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I made no mention of how or what he voted on, only that he's financially clean as a whistle, a military vet, and still enlisted in the national guard.  While I may disagree with some of his politics, it would be unfair to suggest that what he's done is merely a ploy to get him a gig on liberal news networks.  It doesn't even make sense, considering all the money is in grifting with Trump.

 

 

 

So you didn't say he goes against 99% of what his party worships?