Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
KJP

The Republican Party

Recommended Posts

Sen. Tom Cotton makes a threat: If Democrats don't stop using Senate procedure to jam nominations, "we might be compelled to change the rules on our own," he tells @hughhewitt

 

 

CkYt3MzWkAAnC-G.jpg

 

Tom Cotton, who once denied the appointment of Cassandra Butts to be Ambaassador to the Bahamas because she was friends with Barack Obama - an appointment he denied for 835 days UNTIL SHE DIED - is now threatening to change the rules of nominations.

 

Tom Cotton remains THE ****ING WORST.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2018/01/alabama_house_debating_bill_to.html

 

The Alabama House of Representatives has passed a bill that would eliminate special elections when there are vacancies in the U.S. Senate.

 

The Republican-backed bill passed 67-31 on a party line vote after about two hours of debate. It moves to the Senate.

 

Republicans are a bunch of snowflake losers.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the policy of the GOP overall.  When you can't win democratically, adopt anti-democratic policies.

 

You guys realize the GOP isn't the only bad guy here, right? Both parties do this. The DNC is currently being sued over their anti-democratic policies. How else would you describe their actions?

 

The DNC charter is fairly explicit. Article V, Section 4 says: “In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns.”

 

The charter goes on to state: “The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.”

 

DNC emails that reached the public a year ago show direct and purposeful violations of those DNC rules. As The New York Times reported with understatement days before the national convention, “The emails appear to bolster Mr. Sanders’s claims that the committee, and in particular [DNC Chair Debbie] Wasserman Schultz, did not treat him fairly.”

 

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/dnc-fraud-lawsuit-exposes-anti-democratic-views-democratic-party/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ where is the part where they want to make it harder for people to vote or get rid of special elections?

 

Call me jaded, but they know full well that they are merely courting more votes that statistically favor Democrats. Then the GOP will suddenly care when their research shows it's their supporters who are struggling to vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ where is the part where they want to make it harder for people to vote or get rid of special elections?

 

Call me jaded, but they know full well that they are merely courting more votes that statistically favor Democrats. Then the GOP will suddenly care when their research shows it's their supporters who are struggling to vote.

 

Your argument falls apart when, during periods of power, Democrats have not gone out of their way to selectively make it harder for traditionally Republican demographics to vote.  The GOP has one out of its way to make it harder for traditionally Democratic demographics to vote.  It's not the Democrats facing legal and constitutional challenges to their gerrymandering of states lately, much of it based on race.  Once again, we have an attempt at a false equivalency.  I'm not arguing that Democrats are perfect angels or anything, but if the claim is that they've occasionally engaged in unfair tactics, the GOP has made it a science and a matter of standard practice. Neither would be right, but one side is far worse.  And logically, it makes sense.  Republicans are facing the demographic bomb, not Democrats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ where is the part where they want to make it harder for people to vote or get rid of special elections?

 

Call me jaded, but they know full well that they are merely courting more votes that statistically favor Democrats. Then the GOP will suddenly care when their research shows it's their supporters who are struggling to vote.

 

Your argument falls apart when, during periods of power, Democrats have not gone out of their way to selectively make it harder for traditionally Republican demographics to vote. 

 

So, when in power the Democrats would do what exactly? Discourage Republican voters by threatening a yacht tax?

 

My point is that because of demographics the Democrats can't stop Republicans from voting the same way that Republicans can disenfranchise Democrats. So the battle takes place only on one front. 

 

One example would be laws that limit or prevent felons from voting. The last study I read was something like 70 percent of ex-felons would vote Democratic. There's just nothing comparable limiting Republican votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ where is the part where they want to make it harder for people to vote or get rid of special elections?

 

Call me jaded, but they know full well that they are merely courting more votes that statistically favor Democrats. Then the GOP will suddenly care when their research shows it's their supporters who are struggling to vote.

 

Your argument falls apart when, during periods of power, Democrats have not gone out of their way to selectively make it harder for traditionally Republican demographics to vote.  The GOP has one out of its way to make it harder for traditionally Democratic demographics to vote.  It's not the Democrats facing legal and constitutional challenges to their gerrymandering of states lately, much of it based on race.  Once again, we have an attempt at a false equivalency.  I'm not arguing that Democrats are perfect angels or anything, but if the claim is that they've occasionally engaged in unfair tactics, the GOP has made it a science and a matter of standard practice. Neither would be right, but one side is far worse.  And logically, it makes sense.

^ where is the part where they want to make it harder for people to vote or get rid of special elections?

 

Call me jaded, but they know full well that they are merely courting more votes that statistically favor Democrats. Then the GOP will suddenly care when their research shows it's their supporters who are struggling to vote.

 

Your argument falls apart when, during periods of power, Democrats have not gone out of their way to selectively make it harder for traditionally Republican demographics to vote.  The GOP has one out of its way to make it harder for traditionally Democratic demographics to vote.  It's not the Democrats facing legal and constitutional challenges to their gerrymandering of states lately, much of it based on race.  Once again, we have an attempt at a false equivalency.  I'm not arguing that Democrats are perfect angels or anything, but if the claim is that they've occasionally engaged in unfair tactics, the GOP has made it a science and a matter of standard practice. Neither would be right, but one side is far worse.  And logically, it makes sense.  Republicans are facing the demographic bomb, not Democrats.

^ where is the part where they want to make it harder for people to vote or get rid of special elections?

 

Call me jaded, but they know full well that they are merely courting more votes that statistically favor Democrats. Then the GOP will suddenly care when their research shows it's their supporters who are struggling to vote.

 

Your argument falls apart when, during periods of power, Democrats have not gone out of their way to selectively make it harder for traditionally Republican demographics to vote.  The GOP has one out of its way to make it harder for traditionally Democratic demographics to vote.  It's not the Democrats facing legal and constitutional challenges to their gerrymandering of states lately, much of it based on race.  Once again, we have an attempt at a false equivalency.  I'm not arguing that Democrats are perfect angels or anything, but if the claim is that they've occasionally engaged in unfair tactics, the GOP has made it a science and a matter of standard practice. Neither would be right, but one side is far worse.  And logically, it makes sense.  Republicans are facing the demographic bomb, not Democrats.

^ where is the part where they want to make it harder for people to vote or get rid of special elections?

 

Call me jaded, but they know full well that they are merely courting more votes that statistically favor Democrats. Then the GOP will suddenly care when their research shows it's their supporters who are struggling to vote.

 

Your argument falls apart when, during periods of power, Democrats have not gone out of their way to selectively make it harder for traditionally Republican demographics to vote. 

 

So, when in power the Democrats would do what exactly? Discourage Republican voters by threatening a yacht tax? 

^ where is the part where they want to make it harder for people to vote or get rid of special elections?

 

Call me jaded, but they know full well that they are merely courting more votes that statistically favor Democrats. Then the GOP will suddenly care when their research shows it's their supporters who are struggling to vote.

 

Your argument falls apart when, during periods of power, Democrats have not gone out of their way to selectively make it harder for traditionally Republican demographics to vote.  The GOP has one out of its way to make it harder for traditionally Democratic demographics to vote.  It's not the Democrats facing legal and constitutional challenges to their gerrymandering of states lately, much of it based on race.  Once again, we have an attempt at a false equivalency.  I'm not arguing that Democrats are perfect angels or anything, but if the claim is that they've occasionally engaged in unfair tactics, the GOP has made it a science and a matter of standard practice. Neither would be right, but one side is far worse.  And logically, it makes sense.  Republicans are facing the demographic bomb, not Democrats.

, not Democrats.

 

That Demographic bomb has been predicted forever. Remember that immigrants who become citizens come from places much much more conservative than the USA. Immigrant groups assimilate fast, especially Hispanics and E. Asians, they marry out at around 40%. As I posted before Kudos to Ted Kennedy for his 65' Immigration Act. If not for that it would be a disaster for Dems. I read somewhere than Black women in the USA have aborted 19 Million babies. You win some you lose some. First generation immigrant groups do vote Dem first generation, after that coin toss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Illinois Republican Party rebuked the candidate in a statement, saying their chapter “and our country have no place for Nazis like Arthur Jones,”

 

“We strongly oppose his racist views and his candidacy for any public office, including the 3rd Congressional District,” Tim Schneider, a spokesman for the party, told the newspaper.

 

It should also be noted that this is a heavily Democratic Chicago district that Republicans don't even bother running candidates in, which is why he's "unopposed." This headline is clickbait, and the article is pretty stupid. The only real relationship it has to this thread is that the Republican Party denounced what is tantamount to a publicity stunt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So.... this guy is going to win the GOP primary in Illinois' 3rd District....

 

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-camerota-confronts-literal-nazi-running-for-gop-congressional-seat-in-insane-interview/

 

It's been covered - the GOP isn't endorsing him or his views.  He's running in a very liberal district, so he basically has no "establishment" GOP opposition because no one is wasting their time there.

 

That said, it's still bad optics that a literal Nazi wants to run as a Republican.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ 1) This is a non-story, the local party has already disavowed him and they are not choosing to run a real candidate in this district.

2) The guy has run for various offices and lost since the mid 90s

3) anyone can get their name on a ballot by collecting enough signatures. Just because he puts an R behind his name does not mean the party will give him resources. The rules of the party allow for anyone who gets the signatures to get on the ballot. I believe it is the same in the DNC too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A) It's not a non story when a nazi candidate wins a major party primary.

 

B) The local GOP should, at the very least, put forth an alternative that would make sure he isn't the primary choice. Not doing so is a degree of complicity.

 

C) If anyone else believes gerrymandering doesn't need to be fixed, here's a case study as to why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ The guy has a right to get his name on the ballot if he wants. The fact that the rules allow him to do this is more of the issue the GOP needs to address, but how do you do this yet remain open to people. Yes, it is embarrassing but when you put it in perspective it is a non-story, just a way for liberals to thumb their elitist noses at the GOP, because of some clown in IL

 

It would not be appropriate for the GOP to field a serious candidate because you are essentially asking for someone to go in, expend the effort, spend a lot of money and resources and even ruin their good name for ultimately what amounts to a lost cause. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ The guy has a right to get his name on the ballot if he wants. The fact that the rules allow him to do this is more of the issue the GOP needs to address, but how do you do this yet remain open to people. Yes, it is embarrassing but when you put it in perspective it is a non-story, just a way for liberals to thumb their elitist noses at the GOP, because of some clown in IL

 

It would not be appropriate for the GOP to field a serious candidate because you are essentially asking for someone to go in, expend the effort, spend a lot of money and resources and even ruin their good name for ultimately what amounts to a lost cause. 

 

I'm a Conservative thumbing my nose at the GOP.

 

When a Communist finds his way onto the ballot in heavy red districts, I'll do the same. But allowing a Holocaust denier to get the nod in ANY district is unacceptable. Especially on the coattails of the Moore scandal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ So the only real solution is to lock down the primary process. I am not sure if this has been litigated before as Constitutional or not, but there could be issues with the legality of this.

 

No, if he's the only one on the ballot, you've gotta run him.

 

But the local GOP should ensure there is someone else on the ballot.

 

Secondly, gerrymandering reform will help with instances like this.

 

Always nice to see nice, symmetrical districts... lossless-page1-400px-Illinois_US_Congressional_District_3_%28since_2013%29.tif.png

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The solution is not to align any American political party with Nazi ideals.  You say he's not a Republican, fine, but what are the chances this person would run as a Democrat?  None.  He knows what side he's on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The solution is not to align any American political party with Nazi ideals.  You say he's not a Republican, fine, but what are the chances this person would run as a Democrat?  None.  He knows what side he's on.

 

Why would a nazi feel safe in the GOP?

 

There are fine people on both sides.  - Trump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The solution is not to align any American political party with Nazi ideals.  You say he's not a Republican, fine, but what are the chances this person would run as a Democrat?  None.  He knows what side he's on.

 

“Fine people”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The solution is not to align any American political party with Nazi ideals.  You say he's not a Republican, fine, but what are the chances this person would run as a Democrat?  None.  He knows what side he's on.

 

Not necessarily. He is a nutjob and will run with whatever forum he can get. You have a strong incumbent right now on the D side so he will run as a R. If you switch the scenario and you have a non-contested R, then you get a clown running as a D.

 

Also, when the party disavows him, that is not aligning with Nazi ideals. That is a false narrative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, when the party disavows him, that is not aligning with Nazi ideals. That is a false narrative.

 

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this statement... until he receives more votes in the district than write-in options. Then it's no longer a false narrative, he is a Republican candidate for Congress.

 

Disavow applies to funding and endorsements. But there's a reason why David Duke, Roy Moore, and this tool have all felt sheltered on the right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YABO713[/member] and I get what you are saying about running a serious candidate, it would be nice, but not necessarily efficient. Political parties need to make economic decisions about which seats are worth throwing their weight into and the IL 3 is just not on that level. Do serious candidates want to risk their reputation and become a sacrificial lamb and spend a ton of money only to lose big?  That is a lot to ask of the organization not to mention the person running on the ticket.

 

You are right, we need to create more competitive districts, but I am not sure getting rid of gerrymandering would even help districts such as the IL-3, unless gerrymandered in in ways to balance out the registered voters in the area to make it competitive.  I just don't know if there really is anything realistic that can be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brutus_buckeye[/member] I can appreciate your point, but mine is simply this. It should cost $0 to put forward a candidate that can beat a Nazi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, it costs more than $0 to put forward any candidate.  Even just collecting signatures is seldom truly free.

 

Fair, it cost a cousin of mine about $350 to get on the ballot. So $350.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real bad optics for the Republican Party will not be the Nazi running, as the party has indeed disavowed him, it will be when their base voters still go ahead and vote for the Nazi.

Share this post


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.   Restore formatting

  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.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...