• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ongoing US GOP Debacle Thread: Seditious Republicans march toward authoritarianism

I give credit to Schilling for ultimately doing the right thing...but the default reaction by today's "conservatives" to call every opposing fact or opinion fake news is a great way to lose all credibility in the long run (speaking in general terms here..schilling doesn't have any credibility after he pissed away 250M of RI's economic development fund).

 
Gaetz continues: "If anything, we should be abolishing a lot of the agencies at the federal level like the Department of Education, like the EPA and sending that power back to our state governments."


Ignorance, pollution, and sex trafficking cross state lines and need federal intervention.
 
A monument to SC’s black Confederate soldiers? None fought for the South, experts say

Two South Carolina lawmakers want to erect a monument on the State House grounds to African-Americans who served the state as Confederate soldiers. But records show the state never accepted nor recognized armed African-American soldiers during the Civil War.

“In all my years of research, I can say I have seen no documentation of black South Carolina soldiers fighting for the Confederacy,” said Walter Edgar, who for 32 years was director of the University of South Carolina’s Institute for Southern Studies and is author of “South Carolina: A History.”

“In fact, when secession came, the state turned down free (blacks) who wanted to volunteer because they didn’t want armed persons of color,” he said.
Click to expand...
 
avalon said:
A monument to SC’s black Confederate soldiers? None fought for the South, experts say
Click to expand...

What? White South Carolinians fighting to preserve slavery didn't want to arm blacks for fear they would try to free themselves instead? Say it isn't so! As the historians in the article point out, neo-Confederate claims that there were black "soldiers" in the Confederate Army overlook the fact that nearly all of them were not soldiers, but cooks, manservants, etc. Many were actually slaves forced to come to the front by their owners (or owner's sons) to cook, clean, and otherwise wait on them. Another attempt to deny that the war was actually about slavery. I did like the guy in the comments section who said we should ignore the LibDem "experts" interviewed for the article and trust pro-Confederate amateurs like himself, because "experts built the Titanic, but amateurs built the Ark." Lolz.
 
 
Background: Dinesh D'Souza tweeted a photo of this widow kneeling by her husband's open casket back in September. Includes a bullshit message about the NFL kneeling controversy.

Looks like the widow just came across the tweet yesterday:

 
Based on her feed, looks like this is something she deals with semi regularly and Trumps RT of a pic of a widow set her off.

Yet another Gold Star family disrespected by Republicans.
 
 
Republicans care about military service to the point it serves political aims. We saw that with how Kerry was treated.

I hate seeing those memes because I see the role of the state in breaking up families and sending dads to die. That’s something wrong with our country not something to celebrate.
 
PhDeac said:
Republicans care about military service to the point it serves political aims. We saw that with how Kerry was treated.

I hate seeing those memes because I see the role of the state in breaking up families and sending dads to die. That’s something wrong with our country not something to celebrate.
Click to expand...


Republican don't care about the military, but the people that back the Republicans do for some reason. therefore Repugnicants must keep up the charade.
 
As Brian Beutler says, Republicans have become the Grand Obstruction Party. Why?
The answer, I think, is that the cynical bargain that has been the basis of Republican strategy since Reagan has now turned into a moral trap. And as far as we can tell, no elected Republican – not one – has the strength of character to even attempt an escape.
The cynical bargain I’m talking about, of course, was the decision to exploit racism to advance a right-wing economic agenda. Talk about welfare queens driving Cadillacs, then slash income taxes. Do Willie Horton, then undermine antitrust. Tout your law and order credentials, then block health care.


For more than a generation, the Republican establishment was able to keep this bait-and-switch under control: racism was deployed to win elections, then was muted afterwards, partly to preserve plausible deniability, partly to focus on the real priority of enriching the one percent. But with Trump they lost control: the base wanted someone who was blatantly racist and wouldn’t pretend to be anything else. And that’s what they got, with corruption, incompetence, and treason on the side.


...

More specifically, Trump’s very awfulness means that if he falls, the whole party will fall with him. Republicans could conceivably distance themselves from a president who turned out to be a bad manager, or even one who turned out to have engaged in small-time corruption. But when the corruption is big time, and it’s combined with obstruction of justice and collaboration with Putin, nobody will notice which Republicans were a bit less involved, a bit less obsequious, than others. If Trump sinks, he’ll create a vortex that sucks down everyone involved.


And so we now have the Republican party as a whole fully complicit in Trump’s crimes – because that’s what they are, whether or not he and those around him are ever brought to justice.


What this means, among other things, is that expecting the GOP to exercise any oversight or constrain Trump in any way is just foolish at this point. Massive electoral defeat – massive enough to overwhelm gerrymandering and other structural advantages of the right – is the only way out.



https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/01/...ml?_r=0&referer=https://t.co/cAP3ULW7Q5?amp=1
 
That’s not really the right takeaway from those numbers. The story is Dems are really no more likely than during Obama to think the unemployment numbers are higher. That means Dem trust in the numbers isn’t based on who is in office.

For Republicans and Independents, it’s all about who is in office.

It’s also notable that media and prominent Dems aren’t going around saying the unemployment numbers are false.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top