DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus What the Republicans Has Turned Into

And it's very sad it has come to that. I certainly don't envy conservatives and there really wasn't much about Trump that was conservative. There was a time when most every political discussion concerned policy, not craziness and conspiracies. The type of politician in principal that Trump is actually isn't anything new on the surface. Going from my limited time on the planet it goes back to Goldwater.

But the message was far more sugar coated and had far more subtle undertones. Extremism runs in both parties. But when you start getting into Jewish space lazers, QAnon conspiracies and accustations about a stolen election that has been proven false over and over again, the inmates have certainly taken over the asylum.

While it makes the choice of real conservatives far more difficult moving forward, at some point you have to take your party back.

This is honesty. I hope more republicans start to see it this way soon. It would be nice to have thinking adults on both sides of the aisle again. Thanks for a little hope Oober.

This is how I've felt about the right since the tea party hit the scene. I knew I was done with the republican party at that point.

'QAnon Shaman' attorney: World hasn't seen 'propaganda' like Trump's since Hitler

A lawyer for self-described "QAnon Shaman" Jacob Chansley, who was charged after entering the Capitol on Jan. 6, said the world has not seen "propaganda" like it has in the past four-plus years since Adolf Hitler.

Attorney Albert Watkins made the comment to Talking Points Memo (TPM) while discussing his client’s case. Chansley was charged with knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority and with violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds.

Watkins told TPM that Chansley has Asperger’s syndrome, arguing that his client's mental state and the influence of former President Trump’s “propaganda” efforts would play a role in his case.

“A lot of these defendants — and I’m going to use this colloquial term, perhaps disrespectfully — but they’re all f---ing short-bus people. ... These are people with brain damage, they’re f---ing retarded, they’re on the [censored] spectrum,” Watkins told the outlet.

“But they’re our brothers, our sisters, our neighbors, our coworkers — they’re part of our country. These aren’t bad people, they don’t have prior criminal history. F---, they were subjected to four-plus years of [censored] propaganda the likes of which the world has not seen since f------ Hitler,” he added.

The lawyer defended his comments in an email to The Hill, arguing that there was a "reason and purpose" behind his "less than politically correct description" of the people who participated in what he called a "visit" to the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Watkins said his description fit "many" people who took part in the day's events.

"One charged, insensitive, and vulgar statement was all that was required to garner the needed attention to this important aspect of the January 6 defendants," Watkins wrote.

He said his pleas for "compassion and understanding" for the people involved in the events on Jan. 6 who have mental health issues and disabilities "have to date fallen on deaf ears."

Chansley, one of the most recognizable supporters of Trump who entered the Capitol on Jan. 6, has attempted to place some onus on the former president for energizing and persuading his supporters to enter the Capitol in an attempt to disrupt Congress's Electoral College certification.

In court documents filed in February, Watkins wrote that Chansley was consistent “in his assertion that but for the actions and the words of the President, he would not have appeared in Washington, DC to support the President and, but for the specific words of the then-President during his January 6, 2021 speech, the Defendant would not have walked down Pennsylvania Avenue and would not have gone into the U.S. Capitol Building.”

Watkins doubled down on the argument, telling TPM that there will “necessarily be a legal compulsion” to discuss Trump’s purported involvement in the case.

“Legally, these are unprecedented cases… And as a result, while the judge may not be compelled to emotionally embrace, as a matter of opinion, the effect or the impact of the words and actions of the former President as being a cause, there is going to necessarily be a legal compulsion to address that reality as part of an evaluation of culpability,” Watkins said.

A federal judge in March, however, argued that Chansley’s claim holding Trump accountable for his alleged illegal entry into the Capitol illustrated that he had no remorse for his actions. Chansley was ordered to stay in jail ahead of his trial.

Chansley has been one of the most recognizable figures in the aftermath of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. He was captured in a number of photographs and videos shirtless wearing a hat with horns on Capitol grounds.

According to Insider, 482 people have been charged in connection with the Capitol riot thus far.

https://thehill.com/policy/national-secu...ke-trumps-since

I'm with Oober on this one as well. From what I can tell, he and I are aligned on a majority of our outlooks, and this is another area.

To add some more to the topic, I have a lot of uncertainty on how it will move forward. I think what Oober is inferring is that the crazies will control the Republicans and lose the moderate/rational voters, and continue to lose seats in Congress as well as the White House, until the craziness burns itself on the right because of failure after failure to deliver, causing the Republicans to reinvent themselves.

That is what I hope for, a true return back to conservativism for Republicans. Not Reaganomics or crony-capitalism, not bible thumping intrusiveness into personal lives, not self-righteousness. A setup where the economic ladder is more-or-less free-flowing in both directions.

There are several areas where I remain uncertain, though:

1. Will the Democrats deliver while all the craziness devolves on the right? The Dems screwed the pooch with all of their shenanigans in '16 and they need to face that fact. I think the same dynamic that brought Trump into office still exists for now. If - through their own hubris - the Dems don't realize that they also need to clean up their act to appeal to both their constituents and to moderates, they could run the risk of '16 happening again.

2. How will the economy fair in the near future? Let's face it, there is a mainstream association of how the economy fairs with the party that is in power at the time. And that association exists regardless of how much sway the party in power even had. If a bubble bursts and the economy tanks, the Republican party - as is - could still reassume power.

3. How will the Republicans reinvent themselves? As long as guys like Ted Cruz, Lindsay Graham, McCarthy, and Josh Hawley maintain sway in Congress, they will literally do ANYTHING to stay in power. Even kiss the butts of people who insult them and their wives personally. Everything is considered fair game to them as long as they can keep power. They are the Lannisters of DC.

Who could challenge them? Could people like Sasse, Cheney and Kinzinger overcome their current pariah state and assume a reverse tidal wave?

I honestly don't know where it's all headed. For all our sakes, I hope the Dems can deliver, the economy stays good, and the sycophants somehow lose their power.

i wonder where all the normal conservatives will go. will they truly reinvent themselves, or just become political gypsies?

oooo and if they reinvent themselves, they will have to deal with the fact that the GOP still has the advantage....

oh, wait. we already saw this movie before. the tea party came about, only to get assimilated like the Borg.

the same thing will happen to the rebranded republicans.

I think the difference is that the TEA party was never a genuine cause. It's too early to know if the current "renegades" are genuine, but guys like Sasse and Kinzinger seem to be more rational and reasonable, at least on the surface, than people like Michelle Bachmann or Ted Cruz.

Heck, I wonder how many true conservatives there even are left out there. There was an exodus after Bush's crash, after the tea party's arrival, Trump's election, and now again... how many true conservatives are left in that party?

Trump calls for Jan. 6 commission debate to end 'immediately'

Former President Trump called for an immediate end to the debate over a commission to investigate the Jan. 6 Capitol riot the night before the House is expected to approve the plan.

“Republicans in the House and Senate should not approve the Democrat trap of the January 6 Commission. It is just more partisan unfairness and unless the murders, riots, and fire bombings in Portland, Minneapolis, Seattle, Chicago, and New York are also going to be studied, this discussion should be ended immediately,” Trump said in a statement Tuesday night.

“Republicans must get much tougher and much smarter, and stop being used by the Radical Left. Hopefully, Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy are listening!” he added.

Trump's statement came shortly after the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus endorsed the creation of a panel, despite opposition from House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.)

The House is set to vote on legislation approving a 9/11-style commission that will investigate the role Trump had in spurring the riots.

McCarthy announced on Tuesday that he opposed the new legislation, saying it puts too much focus on the attack at the Capitol and not enough on other violent riots that happened in the country as well as incidents such as the 2017 shooting of GOP lawmakers at a congressional baseball game.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/554249-trump-calls-for-jan-6-commission-debate-to-end-immediately

Smokescreen.

The very act of including these sweeping provisions negates the purpose of a 9/11-style commission: a bipartisan, narrowly-focused, event-specific panel of inquiry. A commission with a mission.

When Bush43 signed the 9/11 commission into law, there was no dickering about its focus. There was no debate about including other potential threats to the US at a time that called for a direct accounting about the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks.

In 2001, an attack was successfully carried out against the US, and that commission was specifically tasked with finding out how and why.
This commission in 2021 should be under the same parameters of specificity.


No watering this inquiry down, Kevin McCarthy. Start a separate commission to investigate general mayhem and violence in America's mass gatherings, but leave this commission to do what 9/11 did: give America clear answers that led to substantive changes in how we may better defend ourselves.

That is what's needed here.
That is what's needed now.

No matter where it leads.
National Security is at the very heart of this.

The fact that this attack didn't come from foreign influence should have no bearing on the direction, depth or thoroughness of this investigation. If we want to better guard ourselves from something like this again, we have to know the hows and whys of this particular event. ALL OF THEM.

"...against all enemies, foreign and domestic; "

j/c...

I will say that my ideal situation relies heavily on the notion of a 'silent majority'. It's a group that hold tremendous voting power and is, more or less, fairly rational in their thinking. We don't hear from them much because they're a fairly boring bunch, and don't like to jump to the front of the political scene.

I hope you are correct.

Sadly I think if the silent majority stay silent - then the division and noise from the folks on either side of that spectrum will continue to be a louder and more powerful force than they otherwise should be and will continue to drive and inspire ever more division.

I think/hope that resembles me. I think I've become a lot more boisterous in recent years because of all the shenanigans.

The question becomes will the people you describe come up with a viable candidates and support them even at the huge risk of losing or will they continue to put power over ethics?

Yeah, Democrats...' your old party'...would never eat their own.


‘Go F**k Yourself’ — Jill Biden Furious After Kamala Harris Racial Bus Attack

Charlie Spiering

19 May 2021


A new story about the 2020 Democrat primary campaign reveals the details of Jill Biden’s fury after Sen. Kamala Harris attacked Joe Biden for his record on race and public busing.

Harris debuted her attack on Biden’s record in a June 2019 debate with her Democrat rivals.

“There was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools and she was bused to school every day. That little girl was me,” Harris said, announcing that Biden’s views personally offended her.

Jill Biden vented against Harris and her early primary debate attack on a phone call with close supporters, arguing that her husband was not racist, according to a new book about the 2020 campaign.

“With what he cares about, what he fights for, what he’s committed to, you get up there and call him a racist without basis?” Jill Biden said according to multiple people on the call. “Go f— yourself.”

Details of the call were revealed by reporter Edward-Isaac Dovere in his book Battle for the Soul: Inside the Democrats’ Campaigns to Defeat Trump and previewed by Politico.

Support for Harris spiked briefly in the polls after the debate attack but ultimately sputtered out entirely.

Harris exited the presidential race in December 2019, before the caucusing even began in Iowa, despite spending over $25 million on her failed campaign.

After Biden won the nomination Harris laughed off her attack, saying she was “1000 percent in support of Joe Biden.”

“It was a debate,” Harris laughed during an interview with Stephen Colbert in August 2020 and repeated. “It was a debate. It was a debate. Literally it was a debate. It was called a debate. Everyone traveled to the debate. There were journalists at the debate.”

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/...ial-bus-attack/

And yet after the campaign they came together and she is vice president. Unless of course you believe "the big lie". And guess what? The Democratic party didn't demote or punish anyone for telling the truth.

'The big fraud'!

Rick Santorum
Rick Perry
Rand Paul
George Pataki
Bobby Jindal
Mike Huckabee
Lindsey Graham
Scott Walker
Chris Christie
Carly Fiorina
Jeb Bush
Ben Carson
Marco Rubio
John Kasich
Ted Cruz

2016 Candidates were a sorted (if not sordid) cast of characters. We started the debates with, like, fifty of them on stage. Most quickly dropped out. All had warts. Many voted for Trump, because frankly, he seemed tough on a lot of issues that others swept under the rug. And what were the options on the democratic side? A career criminal!

Nobody expected Trump to win. The narrative was "the republican party is in disarray, where do they go from here??"

Then Trump won and the narrative became: "the democratic party is in disarray, where do they go from here??"

Now Trump is gone and the narrative is, once again: "the republican party is in disarray, where do they go from here??"

It's an ongoing cycle. The funny thing is, many act like WE the people put these candidates on stage. We don't. The party and the media chooses for us.

Want evidence? Just look at the fact that we just elected an 80 year old with serious declining cognitive abilities.

Thoughts and prayers.

Assuming all that is true, wouldn't "eating your own" mean that the two of them are still bitter rivals (a la Trump/Romney or Trump/Kinzinger or Trump/Cheney or Trump/McConnell) vs President and Vice President?

I will actually fault the Democrats more with the candidate choice being picked by the party. '16 was a glaring example of that. I don't think the Republican "powers that were" had any real intention of getting Trump elected at the time.

I know the popular opinion from the right claims that Hillary is "a career criminal". But do you have any idea how many times the Republicans have investigated her and came up empty every time? They even investigated her after Trump was elected and still found nothing. I certainly did not consider her morally fit to be president, but then again I felt the same way about Trump.

The question doesn't really revolve around "who was put on stage" for the Republicans to me. It's the fact that Republicans chose the most disgusting human being on that stage to vote for and endorse. He went around saying nasty and volatile things. Invoking those at his rallies to assault those who were against him in the crowd. Telling police to rough up suspects.

It was simply disgusting. And that was their choice, not anyone elses.

It would but that flew right over his head.

We voted the fraud out in November. I’d refer to him as fat though. Not big. It’s more accurate. We voted the fat fraud out in November. Actually let’s throw ‘big’ back in there. It has a nice ring to it. We voted the big fat fraud out this past November.

Get over it.

Along those lines... this is why I added my little disclaimer. Nobody saw Trump coming leading up to 2016. He just kept picking up steam and momentum. I was really hoping, after the first wave of dropouts, that Kasich could survive to a nomination.

Actually I was hoping Kasich would rise to the top as well. I just feel that Trump represented the anger that Republicans held and a lot of the vile things he was saying was actually how many of them felt. I can't think of any other logical reason he garnered so much support.

When dog whistles blow, dogs listen.

I remember it well. Harris landed one square on the jaw of Biden. It's politics, not afternoon tea. She did some research found something in a politicians past, created a direct personal impact, made the attack and Biden had to backtrack and explain.

I have no doubt that Jill Biden was upset. But leave it to Breitbart to create some drama when everyone has kissed and made up.

This type of stuff happens all the time. Willie Horton, McCain campaign fliers, etc. etc.

The fact that this was one of Kamala's very few significant moments in the primary and she still ended up as Biden's VP is far more significant (IMO) than how Jill Biden feels about certain political shots.

I find it quite informative to now know that making someone your vice presidential running mate is considered "eating your own". I had no idea.

Like Joe B's run that died but got him the VP slot? I think most VPs are considered good enough for the backup role based on experience. Getting your ass handed to you in an election is often part of said experience.

I disagree. I present to you..... Dan Quayle.

He was a really nice guy with a spelling issue is all...

I guess that's a fair point. I'm probably just hung up on how that went down (naming a woman to score cheap political points).

Yes and no. I felt like that to a degree but then I thought about somebody having to break the glass ceiling and why shouldn't they spin that into political capital?

I think that's purely based on perception. We as a nation have never had a woman president yet many nations across the globe have had strong and effective females lead their country.

I understand why someone can and might see it from your viewpoint. I can also see it from the perspective that it's long overdue to put a woman in such a role of government. Did it score some political points? Yes, I'd say it did. But when if ever can a woman become our president or vice president if that's the first thing people think of when they run for such an office?

I mean any time a woman runs in such a position one can say it's to "score cheap political points". That's a built in excuse not to ever vote for a woman.

Agreed. When he said he would tap a woman for VP (instead of saying 'the best' or 'most qualified' or something like that), that told me all I needed to hear regarding what he was looking for out of his VP. IMO, even if we were limited to the women running for nomination, Kamala was not the most qualified. Warren and Klobuchar ran far more effective campaigns.

Well, history shows that leaders can build on the anger and resentment of their constituents to assume power. When that power goes unchecked...no bueno.