Post-Trump GOP

Monahorns said:
How do you do this it there is significant to major election fraud and your party never did due diligence to figure it out and end it?
Click to expand...
One way to not do this (win elections) is to be so focused on the past in order for one guy to save face, that you convince your base to stay home. There are several things that I'd like to see happen to make elections more secure however repeated failed audits and court cases do very little to support "secure". What they do is give ever more fodder for the part of Trump's fanbase to cry "fraud". And when they think "Fraud", they think "why bother".

If there is one place in our institutions that we should prize correct and complete over easy and cheap, it is our elections. Texas managed to get voter security measures in place even before an audit, so and audit is not the cornerstone to addressing these issues. Having conservatives elected is the cornerstone.
 
My only point is that the election security measures may not address the real problems if you don't know what is going on.

States may need to change the computer/software systems they are using in toto.
 
this ******** trump is so focused on himself that he is undermining a sitting GOP gov in GA. He is a piece of crap and continues to show that the only thing that matters to Trump is Trump. It is past time to ditch this shitshow.
 
BrntOrngStmpeDe said:
this ******** trump is so focused on himself that he is undermining a sitting GOP gov in GA. He is a piece of crap and continues to show that the only thing that matters to Trump is Trump. It is past time to ditch this shitshow.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I saw his comment on Stacey Abrams being better than Brian Kemp just because Kemp wouldn't do his bidding. Pathetic. He has cost us massively in Georgia.
 
Seattle Husker said:
He's not gone, just consolidating his power for another 2024 run. He's purging the party of integrity and conservative values so they aren't a distraction in the next election.
Click to expand...

If I were a liberal/ dem I'd be a whole lot more concerned with the current Biden shitshow and the carnage left behind it. You could run a chimp against Biden right now and win easily

I'd feel a lot better about the country if people like you and BlueAnonBubba held Biden accountable for the mess we're in and the failures of his decisions / policies. But you guys seem focused solely on the orange man.

Trump is going to be seen as too old for most conservatives. His 4 years were great, but the baton is being passed
 
Horn2RunAgain said:
You could run a chimp against Biden right now and win easily
Click to expand...

You think Trump is running too, huh? :p

Horn2RunAgain said:
I'd feel a lot better about the country if people like you and BlueAnonBubba held Biden accountable for the mess we're in and the failures of his decisions / policies.
Click to expand...

Like you held Trump accountable? Just because I don't join the Biden whining doesn't mean I support his decisions nor all his policies. Why would I join you when for some insane reason y'all want to hang every decision around Bubba and I's neck as if we made the decision ourselves? To Biden and his admin I simply say "do better, spend less".
 
Seattle Husker said:
He's not gone, just consolidating his power for another 2024 run. He's purging the party of integrity and conservative values so they aren't a distraction in the next election.
Click to expand...

He is still doing things but I think his window to get elected has passed. He didn't beat Biden. Rs need to move on. There is a way better candidate out there.
 
Seattle Husker said:
You think Trump is running too, huh? :p



Like you held Trump accountable? Just because I don't join the Biden whining doesn't mean I support his decisions nor all his policies. Why would I join you when for some insane reason y'all want to hang every decision around Bubba and I's neck as if we made the decision ourselves? To Biden and his admin I simply say "do better, spend less".
Click to expand...

Yes, I held Trump accountable. The economy was the best I've seen in my life. Peace and prosperity. Wish we had that back to be honest
 
Unless Trump has a significant health setback, he will run and will be the nominee. I hate to admit that, but it's almost surely true.
 
Monahorns said:
He is still doing things but I think his window to get elected has passed. He didn't beat Biden. Rs need to move on. There is a way better candidate out there.
Click to expand...
This is true. Very true. But it won't happen. He's spent the last 8 months solidifying his standing with the base.
 
Monahorns said:
The exception proves the rule. AND Kavanaugh and Barret haven't proven to be all that radical.
Click to expand...
Huh? He held a vacancy longer than an ethical person would to impact the presidential election. Shrewd move and I think had way more impact on the election that Bill Clinton or the Russkies. Then, a few years later, did the exact opposite on a Josh Heupel offense timetrack. The Dems would have simply seated a justice in both scenarios.
 
I'll attack the Biden Administration all day long. I think it has been terrible on several fronts. However, I think it's silly to expect Husker and Switzer to dish out some big mea culpa and self-flagellate for not voting for Trump. The pre-Covid Trump economy was strong, but we enacted some of the most fiscally irresponsible policies in recent memory. That record isn't anything to be proud of or to shame others about.
 
OUBubba said:
The Dems would have simply seated a justice in both scenarios.
Click to expand...

No, they wouldn't have. Supreme Court appointments have been a blood sport for Democrats for decades. I'm not defending the double standard. It does exist, but Democrats aren't more righteous on the issue.
 
Mr. Deez said:
No, they wouldn't have. Supreme Court appointments have been a blood sport for Democrats for decades. I'm not defending the double standard. It does exist, but Democrats aren't more righteous on the issue.
Click to expand...
They would NOT have held out a vacancy that long and they WOULD have filled one in the lame duck period. Do you disagree?
 
OUBubba said:
They would NOT have held out a vacancy that long and they WOULD have filled one in the lame duck period. Do you disagree?
Click to expand...

Yes, I disagree. They would have applied the Biden Rule on the earlier pick, and they would have flip-flopped or rationalized four years later like McConnell did. This **** is a blood sport. Your side started playing it with Bork. McConnell played it too.

It's not supposed to be that way, but when one side thinks the Court is supposed to be an unaccountable super-legislature, the stakes get extremely high. It's bad, and it's dangerous. But that's where we are.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Yes, I disagree. They would have applied the Biden Rule on the earlier pick, and they would have flip-flopped or rationalized four years later like McConnell did. This **** is a blood sport. Your side started playing it with Bork. McConnell played it too.

It's not supposed to be that way, but when one side thinks the Court is supposed to be an unaccountable super-legislature, the stakes get extremely high. It's bad, and it's dangerous. But that's where we are.
Click to expand...
PolitiFact - In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year

Very disingenuous to credit Biden with a rule that was NOTHING like what McConnell did.

A. It was almost 4 months later in the cycle - June 25, effectively 4 months before the election. Scalia passed almost 8 months before the election.
B. There was no, you know, ACTUAL VACANCY. So, a moot point.
C. He mentioned after the election, not after the inauguration.

H/T to McConnell. I know a lot of Christian women voted for the ***** grabber due to the pro-life impact. Ironic, that.
 
OUBubba said:
A. It was almost 4 months later in the cycle - June 25, effectively 4 months before the election. Scalia passed almost 8 months before the election.
Click to expand...

So? That's not a big difference.

OUBubba said:
B. There was no, you know, ACTUAL VACANCY. So, a moot point.
Click to expand...

If it was so moot, then why was Biden even addressing the issue? The reason is that he was anticipating a possible vacancy - probably Byron White.

OUBubba said:
C. He mentioned after the election, not after the inauguration.
Click to expand...

I think people knew what he meant regardless of his exact words. They weren't going to confirm a defeated an opposing President's nominee in a lame duck session. Zero chance.

Either way, the issue isn't what Biden said or meant in 1992. It's what Charles Schumer would have done if given the chance that McConnell had.

You act as though Democrats are these high-minded statesmen when it comes to Supreme Court vacancies, and I have no idea where you get that impression. Look at Bork, Thomas, and Kavanaugh. They basically threw **** on their faces. And need I mention that they've twice threatened to pack the Court to intimidate it into submitting to them? That is 100 times worse than McConnell having a double standard. You might mention that the first attempt failed, bit it actually didn't. They didn't get to pack the Court, but they didn't need to, because one of the justices gave in to them (the "switch in time that saved 9"). You make the Democrats sound like Mother Theresa on the Court, when they're more like Carlo Gambino.

OUBubba said:
H/T to McConnell. I know a lot of Christian women voted for the ***** grabber due to the pro-life impact. Ironic, that.
Click to expand...

You complain about that, but why does your side put them in that position? Stop nominating tyrants who don't believe in the rule of law to the Supreme Court, and it gets a lot easier to ditch Trump.
 
Mr. Deez said:
So? That's not a big difference.



If it was so moot, then why was Biden even addressing the issue? The reason is that he was anticipating a possible vacancy - probably Byron White.



I think people knew what he meant regardless of his exact words. They weren't going to confirm a defeated an opposing President's nominee in a lame duck session. Zero chance.

Either way, the issue isn't what Biden said or meant in 1992. It's what Charles Schumer would have done if given the chance that McConnell had.

You act as though Democrats are these high-minded statesmen when it comes to Supreme Court vacancies, and I have no idea where you get that impression. Look at Bork, Thomas, and Kavanaugh. They basically threw **** on their faces. And need I mention that they've twice threatened to pack the Court to intimidate it into submitting to them? That is 100 times worse than McConnell having a double standard. You might mention that the first attempt failed, bit it actually didn't. They didn't get to pack the Court, but they didn't need to, because one of the justices gave in to them (the "switch in time that saved 9"). You make the Democrats sound like Mother Theresa on the Court, when they're more like Carlo Gambino.



You complain about that, but why does your side put them in that position? Stop nominating tyrants who don't believe in the rule of law to the Supreme Court, and it gets a lot easier to ditch Trump.
Click to expand...
They're more like Charlie Strong than Carlo Gambino. And packing the Court was just smack talk. No one was serious about it.
 
Mr. Deez said:
I think it's silly to expect Husker and Switzer to dish out some big mea culpa and self-flagellate for not voting for Trump. .
Click to expand...

No one is expecting that. What many of us are expecting is a defense of Biden's many failures. That hasn't even been approached

The Biden Accountability thread hasn't had a post from a dem/ lib in what, about a month? Hell, at least address the failures and problems. We did with Trump
 
FDR would have packed the court if the Supreme Court would have struck down the New Deal as they were threatening to do.

The fact that they backed down is truly one of the greatest examples of cowardice in American political history.
 
Monahorns said:
The fact that they backed down is truly one of the greatest examples of cowardice in American political history.
Click to expand...

It really was, but they were of course under tremendous pressure to cave. The media obviously sided mostly with FDR. (The justices who resisted were called "the Four Horsemen," as in the apocalypse.) They also knew that though FDR didn't have the votes to do it, there was a point at which he would if they kept fighting him. Obviously Democrats controlled Congress and mostly supported the New Deal, and though they didn't want to pack the Court, their opposition wasn't absolute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top