2018 Republicans thread

[caulfield12]

If it originated on the military/defense side...it follows that it would be much easier to keep quiet than a “traditional” politician/staffer or supposed GOP loyalist taking on the president.

[southsider2k5]

4 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

I don't disagree with that. I would disagree with your earlier use of "First steps", because the Republican cowards in the White House and their enablers in Congress have apparently been ok with this for a good long while. 

I think his letter crossed an imaginary line.  It is one thing to have a shitty relationship with your boss and complain about it.  That has happened plenty. But this is the first time we have gotten someone saying that they are actively sabotaging the President in a letter sent to the New York Times.  When you take that step, there is something else behind it.  Either you are setting up for a 25th amendment showdown, or worse.

[southsider2k5]

2 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

If it originated on the military/defense side...it follows that it would be much easier to keep quiet than a “traditional” politician/staffer or supposed GOP loyalist taking on the president.

That is a whole other angle.  We could even be talking about CIA or FBI.. who Trump has targeted repeatedly.

[Balta1701]

Just now, southsider2k5 said:

I think his letter crossed an imaginary line.  It is one thing to have a shitty relationship with your boss and complain about it.  That has happened plenty. But this is the first time we have gotten someone saying that they are actively sabotaging the President in a letter sent to the New York Times.  When you take that step, there is something else behind it.  Either you are setting up for a 25th amendment showdown, or worse.

IMO the "Something behind it" is Woodward's book making clear this is happening, and then the cowards in the White House who are doing it wanting to put their message out and cover their own asses more. "See we're still good Republicans, yeah this guy's a little nuts and dangerous but it's more important to cut the taxes and remove the regulations". The article literally says that. 

[southsider2k5]

1 minute ago, Balta1701 said:

IMO the "Something behind it" is Woodward's book making clear this is happening, and then the cowards in the White House who are doing it wanting to put their message out and cover their own asses more. "See we're still good Republicans, yeah this guy's a little nuts and dangerous but it's more important to cut the taxes and remove the regulations". The article literally says that. 

Eh.  This last letter shows that there are people who want Trump out because they want the power for themselves.  That isn't cowardly, that is a coup.

[Dick Allen]

6 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Eh.  This last letter shows that there are people who want Trump out because they want the power for themselves.  That isn't cowardly, that is a coup.

That is a good point. Perhaps a cowardly coup. 

[tray]

The op-ed seems like a transparent effort by Trump and his staff to distract attention from the Woodward book.

It doesn't make much sense otherwise because on balance, it is far too self-serving. and undeservingly so, in my estimation (as a non-Republican ).

 

 

[Balta1701]

1 hour ago, southsider2k5 said:

That is a whole other angle.  We could even be talking about CIA or FBI.. who Trump has targeted repeatedly.

If the NYT granted anonymity to a FBI or CIA official and then allowed them to pretend to be a free trade loving low tax Republican that would be the greatest journalistic error of my lifetime. That type of coverup of a known lie should put them out of business. Even if you don’t think much of the paper many of the people who work their consider journalism to be an important concept. If I was the food critic there and the paper allowed someone to lie as you allege, I’d resign and I’d tell everyone else there to do the same.

[tray]

Look at tRump waving a piece of paper around with hi-lited text from the Op-Ed piece and lambasting the NYT and Woodward.  Put that golf ball on the tee.

[StrangeSox]

2 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

If the NYT granted anonymity to a FBI or CIA official and then allowed them to pretend to be a free trade loving low tax Republican that would be the greatest journalistic error of my lifetime. That type of coverup of a known lie should put them out of business. Even if you don’t think much of the paper many of the people who work their consider journalism to be an important concept. If I was the food critic there and the paper allowed someone to lie as you allege, I’d resign and I’d tell everyone else there to do the same.

again, this came from their editorial/opinion pages, not their journalist/newsroom side of the house. the actual journalists are now trying to figure out and report on who actually wrote this.

[Kyyle23]

Woodward released the letter that Cohn stole off Trumps desk.  

always bring the receipts

 

[southsider2k5]

4 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

If the NYT granted anonymity to a FBI or CIA official and then allowed them to pretend to be a free trade loving low tax Republican that would be the greatest journalistic error of my lifetime. That type of coverup of a known lie should put them out of business. Even if you don’t think much of the paper many of the people who work their consider journalism to be an important concept. If I was the food critic there and the paper allowed someone to lie as you allege, I’d resign and I’d tell everyone else there to do the same.

Did they meet in person?

[Balta1701]

37 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

again, this came from their editorial/opinion pages, not their journalist/newsroom side of the house. the actual journalists are now trying to figure out and report on who actually wrote this.

And the editorial page knows that they are trading on the credibility of everyone in that room on both sides when they decide to grant anonymity to this person.

[Balta1701]

37 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Did they meet in person?

I do not know what procedures were followed beforehand but they better damn well have confidence in them.

[caulfield12]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-donald-trump-likely-win-204941807.html

why Trump will likely win a second term...hint, it’s the current structure of the Electoral College

 

The three groups that most heavily support Democratic candidates — blacks (88 percent for Clinton in 2016), Hispanics (66 percent for Clinton) and Asians (65 percent for Clinton) — now find themselves disproportionately living in densely populated states whose electoral votes are undervalued compared to those rural, less-populated states.

As Graph 2 shows, in the 2016 election, Wyoming — where 84 percent of the population is white ― had one electoral vote for every 187,875 residents. California — where 62 percent of the population are minorities ― had one electoral vote for every 677,344 residents. So if a person moved from Wyoming to California, their vote would lose nearly 66 percent of its value in presidential elections.

Population per Electoral Vote

View photos

 

 

More

The Electoral College was designed to buttress the power of white rural voters, and true to that purpose, it continues to suppress the power of minority voters today. Critics may argue that Hillary Clinton lost because she failed to round up as many voters in 2016 as Barack Obama did in 2008 and 2012. But Clinton didn’t so much lose the national election as she failed to win enough support in several states stacked with white voters.

Clinton handily won California (62 percent minority) and New York (43.5 percent minority), barely lost Florida (42.2 percent minority), and racked up more votes in Texas (56.5 percent minority) than Obama had. Together, these four states account for 33 percent of the nation’s population and an increasingly larger percentage of the nation’s minorities. However, Clinton lost traction in Michigan (75 percent white), Pennsylvania (78 percent white), Ohio (80 percent white) and Wisconsin (82 percent white), and as a result, she lost the election.

What this all adds up to is a rather unpopular but quite sound prediction: Donald Trump is likely to win a second term.

Edited October 14, 2018 by caulfield12

[raBBit]

Thanks lefties for focusing on some goofy sexual misconduct accusation from the 80's that had no evidence or legal recourse attached to it. Now we have a Supreme Court Justice that helped write the Patriot Act, has no regard personal privacy and supports policy that completely disregards the fourth amendment. Kavanaugh is for mass surveillance, stop and frisk, expanding presidential powers, etc. I feel like there's enough to attack there past the (R) next to his name. Maybe if we focused more on the verifiable facts instead of trying to make everyone an "-ist" then public discourse could have actually made a difference in this case. 

I'll now step away and get lambasted for holding the same position as the group think but not expressing it in accordance to the mob's preference hah

[caulfield12]

They were going to confirm him regardless...those anti Bush talking points actually were what brought the split GOP wings together in a perverse deal with the devil.

[StrangeSox]

Yeah I'm not sure how any of those lines of attack, while all valid, would get Flake or Collins and Manchin to a "no" on Kavanaugh. I don't think the rest of the short list from the Federalist Society was much if any better on those issues, either.

[illinilaw08]

12 hours ago, raBBit said:

Thanks lefties for focusing on some goofy sexual misconduct accusation from the 80's that had no evidence or legal recourse attached to it. Now we have a Supreme Court Justice that helped write the Patriot Act, has no regard personal privacy and supports policy that completely disregards the fourth amendment. Kavanaugh is for mass surveillance, stop and frisk, expanding presidential powers, etc. I feel like there's enough to attack there past the (R) next to his name. Maybe if we focused more on the verifiable facts instead of trying to make everyone an "-ist" then public discourse could have actually made a difference in this case. 

I'll now step away and get lambasted for holding the same position as the group think but not expressing it in accordance to the mob's preference hah

Rabbit, I'm glad that we agree on a lot of the bad positions Kavanaugh holds, but the only reason that this came close on confirmation was because of the sexual misconduct allegations (that's why Murkowski did not vote in favor).  The Democrats didn't have the votes to stop confirmation, Kavanaugh was on a fast track to confirmation prior to the allegations, and each of those bad positions are kind of Republican talking points right now.  TL;DR - it's certainly not the fault of the left that Kavanaugh is currently a Supreme Court Justice (unless we're talking about why Donald Trump was in a position to appoint Kavanaugh in the first place).  If you disagree with that point, please show your work...