Things that will help the GOP before 2022 elections.

[GMDino]

Maybe they hope that convincing people that its not their fault that god wants them to suffer?

“Dr.” Mark Green helped block Medicaid expansion in TN while saying government programs “keep people from a saving knowledge of God” - he doesn’t care about stopping the violence. The suffering of others just brings them closer to God in his eyes: pic.twitter.com/wxxzGWbc2q https://t.co/9nos2pusYk

— The Tennessee Holler (@TheTNHoller) April 9, 2021

[fredtoast]

(03-25-2021, 06:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That dude actually looks like he's a competition shooter. The flared grips are something you see more on their custom pistols to help facilitate faster reloads in competition.

(03-25-2021, 06:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, the flared mag wells are a dead giveaway.  Of course, that doesn't stand in the way of stereotyping a gun owner. 

"Faster reloads" are not just for competitions.  They also helpful in mass killing situations.

[*Nately120*]

(04-09-2021, 01:59 PM)GMDino Wrote: Maybe they hope that convincing people that its not their fault that god wants them to suffer?

“Dr.” Mark Green helped block Medicaid expansion in TN while saying government programs “keep people from a saving knowledge of God” - he doesn’t care about stopping the violence. The suffering of others just brings them closer to God in his eyes: pic.twitter.com/wxxzGWbc2q https://t.co/9nos2pusYk

— The Tennessee Holler (@TheTNHoller) April 9, 2021

Interesting how a government helping the elderly, the disabled and the destitute prevents them from finding god yet Trump, Joel Olsteen, and Joyce Myers managed to get super christian despite owning mansions, private jets and sprawling estates.

Maybe they were all denied food stamps at some point.  I honestly don't know. 

[masonbengals fan]

Back on topic. Nadler & his ilk pushing to pack the supreme court should help the GOP in the next election cycle.

[TheUberHuber]

(04-15-2021, 12:50 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Back on topic. Nadler & his ilk pushing to pack the supreme court should help the GOP in the next election cycle.

Wouldn't lose my vote

I actually don't think this would net in Republicans favor. Most people who would care about this already vote Republican. It could actually help the democrats. There are a lot of people who don't want a conservative court. Also, I am not sure why Republicans cry when the democrats finally counter punch.

[bengaloo]

(02-23-2021, 03:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 1.  The law suites filed by Dominion.  There will always be a small portion of brainwashed Trump followers, but when all these issues are hashed out in courts of law instead of in internet chat rooms a lot of people will end up eating crow and having to accept reality.

2.  Possible legal/financial problems by Trump.  Again, a small portion will believe that any criticism of Trump is just a "witch hunt", but if he is forced to admit defeat and settle some of these issues in court it will diminish his authority.  It will also expose how much he profited from money donated to his campaign.

3.  Impact of Covid on economy.  No matter how much we try to fix this by just churning out more government debt there will be serious consequences over the next two years.  We are not really fixing the economic problems.  Instead we are just kicking them down the road.  And since Dems are in control they will take the blame.

I have to disagree here. First off, lets open the machines and do an audit. That should never be partisan. There is plenty of evidence and Dominion should be very open and readily willing to allow a full forensic audit if they are totally innocent. No brainer at all there. The fact that there is so much pushback makes them look more guilty. Easy. Transparency is not partisan, its just open to all. Let it happen. If they are innocent they should be eager to prove it. 

Covid and the economy should not be blamed on any one party, ever. Covid isnt partisan, and neither are the effects of it. Politicizing it just divides people even more. The bottom line, both parties should be working hard together to rebuild what was lost as much as possible and working together to get through it. 

The biggest things to help the GOP long term, IMO are:

1. Let go of the abortion issue. No matter what your views on it are, you just cant legislate morality. It doesnt work. Im not for abortion, but realize that if it were to become fully illegal, it would just be another mess. Back alley coat hanger abortions, etc. Time for the GOP to let that issue go. Freedom of choice is always better than force. 

2. Legalize pot on a national scale at least for medical purposes. Tax it and stop putting non-violent potheads in prison. It's ridiculous. 

3. Reach out to the black communities in every way possible. Go there and campaign. Work with everyone to fix some of these issues black communities face. Show that they care. 

I have been a life long democrat, a moderate democrat. Always considered myself socially liberal, fiscally conservative. I've lost interest in federal politics in the last 10 years or so because of the division, race baiting and all the other issues that hurt people. I come from a multi-cultural family, and many have walked away from the democrats and politics actually, because the race baiting is blatant and ridiculous. Not all of them of course, but its there and its obvious. They make things like voter ID's a race issue? That is offensive to think that people dont think black people are capable of getting voter ID's. That right there is the real systemic racism that we are facing. For anyone who thinks voter ID's and things like that hurt black people, you really should do some soul searching, because that in itself is racist. 

When the drama, division and hate begin to go away, I'll put more stock in federal elections. As it stands now, I put my attention to local elections in my city, county and state. The presidential elections have turned into a complete shitshow. I would rather keep my friends than allow politics to hurt friendships, which is epidemic at this point. That s why I dont consider myself very political. Its not because I dont care about politics. Its because I care about all of you, and dont want politics to come between us.

Lets all get together and work together. That's all. 

[*michaelsean*]

(04-15-2021, 03:02 PM)TheUberHuber Wrote: Wouldn't lose my vote

I actually don't think this would net in Republicans favor. Most people who would care about this already vote Republican. It could actually help the democrats. There are a lot of people who don't want a conservative court. Also, I am not sure why Republicans cry when the democrats finally counter punch.

They already tried to counter punch and would have succeeded if only they hadn’t previously gotten the nuclear option rolling.

Packing the court is just whining because you lost.

Anyway many Republican appointees are nowhere near as stalwart as Democrat appointees. Even when it was 5ish to 4 nobody ever wondered which liberal justice was going to jump sides.

[hollodero]

(04-15-2021, 07:46 PM)michaelsean Wrote: They already tried to counter punch and would have succeeded if only they hadn’t previously gotten the nuclear option rolling.

Packing the court is just whining because you lost.

Well.... after the Republicans refused the Garland nomination, Lindsey Graham stood in front of the cameras and assured everyone that this is about principle and that of course he would also oppose a conservative judge if the tables were turned. And that people should hold this statement against him if this situation ever came to pass.

It came to pass. Graham gave zero effs about his word of honor, nor did the whole other republicans, they pushed this lady through. Mitch sure had some giggles about that one.

Letting this just slide is a sign of weakness. If I'm the democrats, the first thing I would consider as soon as I'd have the power is a big counterpunch on that one by expanding the court. Which is no more against any rule than a nuclear option is. You would call doing that being a sore loser. I would call not doing that just being a loser.

And you get approximately zero additional votes by being fair and noble and weak and a punchingbag. It the situation were reversed, Mitch and all the Republicans would not hesitate one second to tilt a 6-3 liberal court back that was created under such murky circumstances. And all conservatives would say that democrats can only blame themselves for that course of action. Wouldn't you too?

[*michaelsean*]

(04-15-2021, 10:29 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well.... after the Republicans refused the Garland nomination, Lindsey Graham stood in front of the cameras and assured everyone that this is about principle and that of course he would also oppose a conservative judge if the tables were turned. And that people should hold this statement against him if this situation ever came to pass.

It came to pass. Graham gave zero effs about his word of honor, nor did the whole other republicans, they pushed this lady through. Mitch sure had some giggles about that one.

Letting this just slide is a sign of weakness. If I'm the democrats, the first thing I would consider as soon as I'd have the power is a big counterpunch on that one by expanding the court. Which is no more against any rule than a nuclear option is. You would call doing that being a sore loser. I would call not doing that just being a loser.

And you get approximately zero additional votes by being fair and noble and weak and a punchingbag. It the situation were reversed, Mitch and all the Republicans would not hesitate one second to tilt a 6-3 liberal court back that was created under such murky circumstances. And all conservatives would say that democrats can only blame themselves for that course of action. Wouldn't you too?

Oh I think it was a shit move not to vote on Garland, and I in no way bought any of their excuses. The Dems tried a counter punch, but they made it easy for the Republicans to enact the nuclear option by enacting it for every other federal judge.

And it would still be 5-4, but in no way hyper partisan as there are always “conservative” justices willing to cross over.

To answer your final question no I would not. I am conservative for sure in that I don’t like things being changed because you are unhappy with the current situation.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-15-2021, 10:29 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well.... after the Republicans refused the Garland nomination, Lindsey Graham stood in front of the cameras and assured everyone that this is about principle and that of course he would also oppose a conservative judge if the tables were turned. And that people should hold this statement against him if this situation ever came to pass.

It came to pass. Graham gave zero effs about his word of honor, nor did the whole other republicans, they pushed this lady through. Mitch sure had some giggles about that one.

Letting this just slide is a sign of weakness. If I'm the democrats, the first thing I would consider as soon as I'd have the power is a big counterpunch on that one by expanding the court. Which is no more against any rule than a nuclear option is. You would call doing that being a sore loser. I would call not doing that just being a loser.

And you get approximately zero additional votes by being fair and noble and weak and a punchingbag. It the situation were reversed, Mitch and all the Republicans would not hesitate one second to tilt a 6-3 liberal court back that was created under such murky circumstances. And all conservatives would say that democrats can only blame themselves for that course of action. Wouldn't you too?

Actually, this is not true.  I don't recall the GOP ever calling for court packing, and they could have easily done so during Trump's first two years.  We've had this discussion before, but I don't think you realize the enormity of such a move and the response it would provoke.  I absolutely don't se Manchin going along with it for this exact reason.  You are 100% correct that McConnell's move was underhanded and shady, but it's not even remotely on the same level.  

[hollodero]

(04-15-2021, 10:46 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Oh I think it was a shit move not to vote on Garland, and I in no way bought any of their excuses.  The Dems tried a counter punch, but they made it easy for the Republicans to enact the nuclear option by enacting it for every other federal judge.

I'm aware there are often two sides to things. For sure, democrats escalated things with enacting a "nuclear option" except for SC nominees, and Republicans did so by inlucing SC nominees, and there were steps of escalation before that and after that.

Now it would make a lot of sense to claim "this escalation needs to stop", but on the other hand, there's the distinct possibility that the party that stops this escalation first just loses out on all fronts.
Imho it's a bit like saying "we do not take big donor money" or "we do not gerrymander our state" etc. Which is fine and sweet and probably the ethically right thing to do, but then you also potentially lose the elections (or the SC) and then on everything else and there's no action points for that.

That's why I would not stop right now if I were the democrats. I'd bear in mind that the opponent is the Republican Party that as of now shows little to no hesitancy to play as dirty as it gets. Which shows in trying to oppose the procedure of vote counting, peddle wild election fraud claims, etc etc., and having an undisputed party leader that calls democrats babykillers and the media the enemy of the people, phones in on Georgia GoP officials and asks them for a few thousand votes "give me a break", helps inciting a Capitol riot, [...a thousand other things...] - And does never get condemned for any of this. The few that tried got censured or censored.

This is the opponent you face as democrats.
Imho. Not expanding the court is somewhat akin to battle fatigue. Just take the punch, let the dirty play pass without consequence and lose the SC. Voters don't reward you for that.

(04-15-2021, 10:46 PM)michaelsean Wrote: And it would still be 5-4, but in no way hyper partisan as there are always “conservative” justices willing to cross over.

Maybe that is the case. I always figured the court itself does want to be as apolitical, meaning as balanced as it can be, and so judges of the majority side are chosen to get more centrist to keep it more even. But maybe liberal judges would not do that. I don't know.

(04-15-2021, 10:46 PM)michaelsean Wrote: To answer your final question no I would not.  I am conservative for sure in that I don’t like things being changed because you are unhappy with the current situation.

Hey I get where you're coming from. But I wonder a bit about that principle still. If a current situation makes people unhappy, they then of course usually want to change it. I think that is also true for conservatives. Sure is for the GOP.

[hollodero]

(04-15-2021, 10:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Actually, this is not true.  I don't recall the GOP ever calling for court packing, and they could have easily done so during Trump's first two years.  We've had this discussion before, but I don't think you realize the enormity of such a move and the response it would provoke.  I absolutely don't se Manchin going along with it for this exact reason.  You are 100% correct that McConnell's move was underhanded and shady, but it's not even remotely on the same level.  

I didn't try to state a fact.

Here's in essence what I implied. Given a democrat senate would have denied Bush's last SC nominee (there was no Garland scenario, but just if there would have been). And if Harry Reid then would have decided oh nuclear is fun, why exempt SC nominees? We have an opening! And then had a nominee pushed through with the nuclear option. And if he then also had orchestrated pushing through a second nominee in the last days of Obama. What would the GOP and Mitch have done then after regaining power?

I'd speculate - speculate - that in this scenario, the GOP would not have hesitated to pack the court, and that many would have claimed that the democrats only have to blame themselves for that. I'd speculate it's something you would possibly say.

And I get it's not on the same level. And the nuclear option for SC nominees was not on the same level as Reid's nuclear option was. And Reid's nuclear option was not on the same level as GOP obstructionism was.
At the same time, it is not "against the rules" - if there's an option to make it work without breaking the constitution, then it's within the rules and GOP precendents helped establish that. Eg. that changing the rules if you can do so is within the rules.

[fredtoast]

(04-15-2021, 12:50 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Back on topic. Nadler & his ilk pushing to pack the supreme court should help the GOP in the next election cycle.

I don't see Biden or any big Democratic leaders really backing this.

I am pretty liberal and so are most of my close friends.  I don't know anyone who supports it.

[fredtoast]

(04-15-2021, 03:29 PM)bengaloo Wrote: I have to disagree here. First off, lets open the machines and do an audit. That should never be partisan. There is plenty of evidence and Dominion should be very open and readily willing to allow a full forensic audit if they are totally innocent. No brainer at all there. The fact that there is so much pushback makes them look more guilty. Easy. Transparency is not partisan, its just open to all. Let it happen. If they are innocent they should be eager to prove it. 

When the case is heard in court where evidence is vetted all the claims will fall apart.  There is no evidence of fraud.
I don't know what you mean by "opening the machines".  Wasn't the evidence supposed to be destroyed by the program?

[bengaloo]

(04-16-2021, 01:39 AM)fredtoast Wrote: When the case is heard in court where evidence is vetted all the claims will fall apart.  There is no evidence of fraud.
I don't know what you mean by "opening the machines".  Wasn't the evidence supposed to be destroyed by the program?

I dont know because every media outlet reports a different story about it. It's what I'd like to know. They are supposed to keep all that stuff like 6 months or something. But I have watched a couple videos where cyber security experts found a lot of evidence that there were not only outside connections sending and receiving packets during the election, and also some kind of program preinstalled in the machines. My daughter has her masters in cyber security, and I asked her about it and she basically laughed and said its a no brainer that the machines couldve been hacked easily and probably were, and she hates Trump lol. But at least she's honest. She thinks the machines need a forensic audit as well. America should always have free and fair elections for the sake of all voters. It was smartmatics reaction that made me even more suspicious. If none of that happened, they should've and could've shut the entire argument dow in one day. They didnt. So yeah, I think the entire election needs a very thorough investigation just like the one in 2016. It wasnt just the voting machines either. Never in the history of America has 6 states stopped counting basically in unison, and alllll kinds of shady stuff went on in the middle of the night. Americans of all parties deserve to know the truth. It could be your guy who gets cheated out of it next. 

Cheating has happened a lot and over the years many people have been arrested for voter fraud, but only on more local levels, not on the big stage. Bush/Gore got flipped in FL. I didnt like Bush and still dont. But when you look at what the DNC and Hillary did to Bernie, and what the RNC and Romney did to Ron Paul, I believe elections of all kinds should be transparent and have strict voter laws. The power needs to go back to the people, whichever side it ends up is fine as long as its honest. Power to the people is all I want. And I want us all to unite and work together to make good solid decisions that compliment the good things from each party.

[*Nately120*]

Democrats are going to pack the court has been a talking point in the past two cycles hasn't it?  Will it be more effective in 2022 or 2024 than it was in 2018 and 2020?

Republicans can go back to good ol "soft on terror" arguments with the withdrawal from afghanistan after a measly 20 years, though so there is that arrow in the quiver.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-16-2021, 09:26 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Democrats are going to pack the court has been a talking point in the past two cycles hasn't it?  Will it be more effective in 2022 or 2024 than it was in 2018 and 2020?

Republicans can go back to good ol "soft on terror" arguments with the withdrawal from afghanistan after a measly 20 years, though so there is that arrow in the quiver.  

It's not really a talking point when they actually create a committee to study doing exactly that.  I doubt they'll have to use a soft on terror attack though, because I have a bad feeling we're going to see some major moves from Russia and China during the Biden presidency.  I certainly hope I'm wrong, but it doesn't look like it.

[Dill]

(04-15-2021, 03:29 PM)bengaloo Wrote: I have been a life long democrat, a moderate democrat. Always considered myself socially liberal, fiscally conservative. I've lost interest in federal politics in the last 10 years or so because of the division, race baiting and all the other issues that hurt people. I come from a multi-cultural family, and many have walked away from the democrats and politics actually, because the race baiting is blatant and ridiculous. Not all of them of course, but its there and its obvious. They make things like voter ID's a race issue? That is offensive to think that people dont think black people are capable of getting voter ID's. That right there is the real systemic racism that we are facing. For anyone who thinks voter ID's and things like that hurt black people, you really should do some soul searching, because that in itself is racist. 

This is puzzling. 

Why wouldn't you think that Republicans are making voter ID's a race issue?  

The assumption behind voter ID laws in southern states has not been that Blacks aren't capable of getting IDs, but that many do not have them and would find the process of getting one costly--especially for the elderly who have been voting for decades, but don't have birth certificates and the like required to get voter ids. Why are such ids even necessary? 

And voter ids are often combined with other regulations, like shortening early voting and reducing the number of polling places. These tactics combined can then shave a few percentage points off the Black vote (not to mention some poor whites).

E.g., in North Carolina in 2012, the Republican party collected data on NC voters which found that Black voters tended to vote early, register on the same day, and were less likely than whites to have picture ids. So they passed laws targeting these practices "with almost surgical precsion," according to the SCOTUS decision Shelby vs Holder, which found the laws unconstitutional. 

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/court-north-carolina-voter-id-law-targeted-black-voters/

Southern Democrats controlled black voting for a hundred years by regulating access. After 1964, The Republicans took over. So we find in state after state efforts to craft laws which reduce access to demographic groups assumed to vote Republican. When their laws are found unconstitutional, they keep writing them until the language is in compliance wit the Constitution, but the effect is still there.

But you argue that those who oppose these laws, with limited success, are the real "race baiters"?  Nothing systemic about the push to limit minority voting in so many states? 

[bengaloo]

(04-16-2021, 01:36 PM)Dill Wrote: This is puzzling. 

Why wouldn't you think that Republicans are making voter ID's a race issue?  

The assumption behind voter ID laws in southern states has not been that Blacks aren't capable of getting IDs, but that many do not have them and would find the process of getting one costly--especially for the elderly who have been voting for decades, but don't have birth certificates and the like required to get voter ids. Why are such ids even necessary? 

And voter ids are often combined with other regulations, like shortening early voting and reducing the number of polling places. These tactics combined can then shave a few percentage points off the Black vote (not to mention some poor whites).

E.g., in North Carolina in 2012, the Republican party collected data on NC voters which found that Black voters tended to vote early, register on the same day, and were less likely than whites to have picture ids. So they passed laws targeting these practices "with almost surgical precsion," according to the SCOTUS decision Shelby vs Holder, which found the laws unconstitutional. 

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/court-north-carolina-voter-id-law-targeted-black-voters/

Southern Democrats controlled black voting for a hundred years by regulating access. After 1964, The Republicans took over. So we find in state after state efforts to craft laws which reduce access to demographic groups assumed to vote Republican. When their laws are found unconstitutional, they keep writing them until the language is in compliance wit the Constitution, but the effect is still there.

But you argue that those who oppose these laws, with limited success, are the real "race baiters"?  Nothing systemic about the push to limit minority voting in so many states? 

It might be puzzling to you, but its not to me.  If you are a white liberal, this topic is beyond your mindset. That is all I will say. 

[*Nately120*]

(04-16-2021, 10:41 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's not really a talking point when they actually create a committee to study doing exactly that.  I doubt they'll have to use a soft on terror attack though, because I have a bad feeling we're going to see some major moves from Russia and China during the Biden presidency.  I certainly hope I'm wrong, but it doesn't look like it.

They're already going back to soft on terror talking points that promised the end of America over a decade ago.