GOP Mad About Election Because Their Voter Suppression Efforts Were Blocked

[rawma]

Yes, I certainly understand why someone would try to discredit witnesses to their misdeeds. Trump has disavowed even ones who have stuck by him, like George Papadopolous (the coffee boy).

People who haven't done anything wrong and who can admit mistakes don't have to pretend they don't know past associates and underlings who turned out to be crooked or incompetent. I leave it to you to decide whether Trump has done something wrong or can't admit mistakes (spoiler: it's both).

Tell me, who is this magical person who has never done anything wrong?

Come on, pics or it never happened!

Well, Jesus Christ leaps to mind, of course.

But "hasn't done anything wrong" means as in not fearing prosecution for violations of the law, not original sin or etiquette blunders. It's not a very high bar; even a few Republicans manage it.

[Ghostmaker]

Yeah, y'know...

Liberal fucknuggets lost any right to bitch about 'morality' or 'ethics' in a President when they pushed Bill 'Super Cigar' Clinton into the White House.

Even when people were pointing out he was a philandering creep who couldn't keep it in his pants and relied on his grifting wife and her flunkies to keep his trysts quiet.

So yeah, we're not impressed when people snivel about whatever perceived failings Trump has. Because a lot of it is projection.

And before some fucknugget brings up Stormy Daniels; how'd that lawsuit turn out again? Oh yeah -- he won.

The past four years have been a hilarious game of "spaghetti fight". The Dems threw everything and the kitchen sink at Trump, and he is still going to finish his term.
Nothing stuck, because the Dems are relying on the same old play book, and it's gotten old and predictable. Yeah, they're going to call people an ist and a phobe and a nazi white supremacist. That's what they do to everyone they disagree with.

No. There is a next step, and it involves more gaslighting - the plan is simple: Anyone who disagrees with them will be arrested under terrorism laws. This includes both evangelists, Jews, outspoken blacks, and the like. They HAVE to have this done before 2026. All we've seen so far is the warm-up. They are not liberals by definition - they are MURDEROUS LIBERTINES who are hellbent on creating a new holocaust. This includes LGBT+ people, btw. What they needed was a balkanization of the United States and running Trump vs Clinton got them there. The problem with most people here is they only think what they are taught. Not for themselves. The election, the reset, the roundups, and the eventual war will lead to the utter destruction of ALL FREEDOMS. This is not theory, nor a joke. Can anyone here tell me WHY it is necessary to have those who annoy you, or that you disagree with IMPRISONED OR MURDERED? Or their families? Or their children?

I do not understand 90% of ANY of you! Unbelievable!

They better send plenty of people then. Some of us will be more than happy to be their huckleberry.

[Shasarak]

Well, Jesus Christ leaps to mind, of course.

You mean the Jesus Christ convicted by the Romans to die by Crucifixion?


I think that proves my point nicely, thank you.

[rawma]

Well, Jesus Christ leaps to mind, of course.

You mean the Jesus Christ convicted by the Romans to die by Crucifixion?


I think that proves my point nicely, thank you.

I presented Jesus as an example of someone who did not do anything wrong; it was Peter who denied Jesus, not the other way around.

What do you think Jesus Christ did wrong? You are welcome to your views, of course, stupid and heretical though they may be.

[Shasarak]

Well, Jesus Christ leaps to mind, of course.

You mean the Jesus Christ convicted by the Romans to die by Crucifixion?


I think that proves my point nicely, thank you.

I presented Jesus as an example of someone who did not do anything wrong; it was Peter who denied Jesus, not the other way around.

What do you think Jesus Christ did wrong? You are welcome to your views, of course, stupid and heretical though they may be.

So even Jesus Christ, your best person ever, had people going behind his back grifting, complaining and betraying him.

[Mistwell]

Take mistwell for example.  He claims to be some sort of right-leaning Republican who had to hold his nose and vote for Biden...kind of like all of W's cabinet.  Has anyone asked him or seen him tell us which policies of Trump's he found so awful?

Yes, people have. And I have volunteered that information here repeatedly.

I most strongly object to Trump's approach to trade. His trade wars - and they are trade wars - are horribly stupid and not conservative at all. My company is paying through the nose in high customs fees directly because Trump raised the duty on our imported goods, and this has had a negative impact on my company, on my customers, and on my industry and it's customers in general. It's damaged the smaller companies more than the larger companies, which is also a bad choice in terms of policies. It's resulted in less pay for my employees (and me), and fewer employees as well.

I object to his ant-globalism. Globalism works, and is a good ethical policy which runs contrary to Democratic Party approaches to the topic. Globalism has successfully undermined communist Governments across the globe, undermined dictatorships across the globe, has spread American culture to those nations, and ultimately resulted in both the massive decrease in poverty in those nations, a rise in the middle class, and a rise in democracy. Opposing globalism is a fucking disaster from a conservative perspective. It has not resulted in a net benefit to American industries, it's only hurt America.

Trump's reckless behavior with regard to some foreign allies has also weakened some valuable alliances with no gains from that process. He's helped some other alliances, but he could have helped those alliances without the weakening of some of the ones I am referring to.

Trump's made a mess of our immigration policies. We should be brain draining other nations, welcoming immigrants with higher degrees and high skill levels into our nation. Instead he's focused most of his effort on illegal immigration, where he has woefully failed. He has not stemmed the tide of illegal immigrants but he spent most of his resources focused on that issue and damaged our ability to brain drain nations to our benefit.

Finally, Trump has made partisanship in America far more prominent than it used to be (and it was already very influential before he took office) and I think that has done long term damage to the nation. The Republican Party finds itself unable to accomplish key goals like lowering the number of regulations, adjusting taxes, addressing changes to education and finance, addressing some land use planning issues, and a host of other topics because they can no longer be seen to negotiate with Democrats without a threat to their jobs. Which hurts the party and conservative interests. 

All of these views are fairly traditional Republican views. Trump isn't much of a traditional Republican. His views don't match of those shared by all of G Bush Sr., Bob Dole, W. Bush, John McCain, or Mitt Romney for example. In some ways, H. Clinton and Joe Biden are closer to the views of those traditional Republicans on many topics than D. Trump.

[EOTB]

Yes, we should drain the rest of the world of its talent, and then after we've taken all their doctors and anyone who could improve their own countries, we should certainly bring as many of the rest of them as can make it here by whatever means, too - which is morally necessary because they're just fleeing horrid conditions created by draining all the talent from their countries.  This will lower skilled and unskilled wages here so Mistwell can make more money and is profoundly conservative!

This is why I despise the Lincoln Project crushees utterly and abjectly.  They are either colossally ignorant or purposefully lying to people to make them vote against their own interests - all so they can make more money.

According to Mistwell, Abraham Lincoln was not a conservative



According to Mistwell, William McKinley was not a conservative



According to Mistwell, Teddy Roosevelt was not a conservative



According to Mistwell, Calvin Coolidge was not a conservative

[RandyB]

Yes, we should drain the rest of the world of its talent, and then after we've taken all their doctors and anyone who could improve their own countries, we should certainly bring as many of the rest of them as can make it here by whatever means, too - which is morally necessary because they're just fleeing horrid conditions created by draining all the talent from their countries.  This will lower skilled and unskilled wages here so Mistwell can make more money and is profoundly conservative!

This is why I despise the Lincoln Project crushees utterly and abjectly.  They are either colossally ignorant or purposefully lying to people to make them vote against their own interests - all so they can make more money.

According to Mistwell, Abraham Lincoln was not a conservative



According to Mistwell, William McKinley was not a conservative



According to Mistwell, Teddy Roosevelt was not a conservative



According to Mistwell, Calvin Coolidge was not a conservative

Mistwell lies as often as he breathes. However, even a blind dog finds a bone now and then. To wit: I wouldn't call Abraham Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt conservatives, either; albeit for different reasons.

[Pat]

To wit: I wouldn't call Abraham Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt conservatives, either; albeit for different reasons.

Neither would I. Lincoln was a radical, Teddy was a progressive, and neither of those map closely to modern beliefs. Plus, a stance on tariffs isn't a litmus test for much of anything, especially when compared across centuries.

[EOTB]

They weren't libertarians, that's for certain.  But tariffs were profoundly conservative, as their purpose was the smallest-burden policy instrument to keep wages high so that government could remain small.  Conservatives have always favored tariffs; i.e., the corn laws in England, etc.

But the point is that neo-conservatives (aka "war democrats" needing a new home after the democratic party went peaceful for a short time decades ago) have become so arrogant they wish to drop the neo- and pretend their policy defines conservatism.

And whether people quibble over conservative or not, to imply Trump's economic policies are not profoundly Republican is to misrepresent history by omission.  And that is the rhetorical effect upon a people deprived of solid knowledge of their history.

[Pat]

Until the income tax came along in 1913, tariffs were how the federal government funded itself. So supporting tariffs wasn't a party issue, it was an everyone issue. And while modern libertarians favor the unilateral elimination of tariffs, limiting government to only what could be afforded by charging tariffs is wildly libertarian compared to any stance held by almost anyone in either of the major parties today, who both tend to favor low tariffs under negotiated free trade regimes as part of the neoliberal technocratic viewpoint that includes the mainstream of both parties. Lincoln was profoundly pro-central government and anti-decentralization, and showed little respect for the Constitution. Teddy Roosevelt was all about increasing federal power, as long as it was run by the right people. Trump is in many ways a New York City liberal, except he has an assortment of populist stances that appeal to grass roots conservatives, including a strong push toward protectionism.

It's very tricky trying to compare politicians from a very differently political climate to the parties and figures of today, and it can also be tricky comparing populists with establishment politicians, in any era. Trump has fundamentally shifted the Republican party in a new direction. Which is conservative, but that's almost definitional.

[EOTB]

Until the income tax came along in 1913, tariffs were how the federal government funded itself. So supporting tariffs wasn't a party issue, it was an everyone issue. And while modern libertarians favor the unilateral elimination of tariffs, limiting government to only what could be afforded by charging tariffs is wildly libertarian compared to any stance held by almost anyone in either of the major parties today, who both tend to favor low tariffs under negotiated free trade regimes as part of the neoliberal technocratic viewpoint that includes the mainstream of both parties. Lincoln was profoundly pro-central government and anti-decentralization, and showed little respect for the Constitution. Teddy Roosevelt was all about increasing federal power, as long as it was run by the right people. Trump is in many ways a New York City liberal, except he has an assortment of populist stances that appeal to grass roots conservatives, including a strong push toward protectionism.

It's very tricky trying to compare politicians from a very differently political climate to the parties and figures of today, and it can also be tricky comparing populists with establishment politicians, in any era. Trump has fundamentally shifted the Republican party in a new direction. Which is conservative, but that's almost definitional.

Historically, when tariffs were policy, the democrats did not support protectionism.  Republicans did.  Under protectionism, the US became the dominant industrial economy in the world.  Facts.  Saying everyone supports tariffs is misleading as to the actual point.

Unless strangely excluding common Americans identifying as republicans, it can not be credibly said that the mainstream of the republican party supports neoliberal policy.  Over and over republican voters (and democrat voters) tell pollsters they support a protective trade policy in defiance of party politicians and their donors.  Which you acknowledge a couple of sentences later, as if forgetting the statement made just previously.

You are trying to make a dialectic case that so and so president doesn't qualify as conservative under an unstated definition.  Again, this is missing the forest for the trees.  Mistwell uses a rhetorical tactic to play one's self-identity as a conservative and/or republican against Trump's current policies; i.e., Trump is in contradiction to republican and/or conservative tradition, and so are you as a reader if you support Trump in these things.  So you as a reader really need to choose between supporting Trump and credibly calling yourself republican and/or conservative.  But Trump is squarely in line with giants in the republican party policy-wise.  You don't see the Republican party or self-professed conservatives running from the legacies of Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt, and to substitute their names for Trump's in Mistwell's argument shows how absurd it is; how rhetorically incoherent it is. 

I shouldn't have to explain this to you Pat. 

[Pat]

Unless strangely excluding common Americans identifying as republicans, it can not be credibly said that the mainstream of the republican party supports neoliberal policy.  Over and over republican voters (and democrat voters) tell pollsters they support a protective trade policy in defiance of party politicians and their donors.  Which you acknowledge a couple of sentences later, as if forgetting the statement made just previously.

This is valid point. Recent studies have shown a fairly strong alignment between the elites of both parties, and their bases, on many issues. But not all issues, and the main exception is economic. The elites tend to favor things like free trade far more than the popular base of their parties. And when there's a divergence between the popular base and the elites, the elites' preferences almost always carry the day.

But that goes back to my point that Trump is a populist, rather than a traditional Republican or conservative. It's not a contradiction on my part, because populism vs. elitism is fundamentally different than the conservative/liberal split. That's why the establishment Republicans have been so hesitant to support him, which gets into a lot of the stuff labeled deep state. He's the first populist politician in a while, which is why he's redefined the political landscape.

You are trying to make a dialectic case that so and so president doesn't qualify as conservative under an unstated definition.  Again, this is missing the forest for the trees.  Mistwell uses a rhetorical tactic to play one's self-identity as a conservative and/or republican against Trump's current policies; i.e., Trump is in contradiction to republican and/or conservative tradition, and so are you as a reader if you support Trump in these things.  So you as a reader really need to choose between supporting Trump and credibly calling yourself republican and/or conservative.  But Trump is squarely in line with giants in the republican party policy-wise.  You don't see the Republican party or self-professed conservatives running from the legacies of Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt, and to substitute their names for Trump's in Mistwell's argument shows how absurd it is; how rhetorically incoherent it is. 

I shouldn't have to explain this to you Pat.

No, I'm not. I explicitly called Trump a conservative, though I noted his roots and some of his reflexes are liberal. The case I'm making is that there is no ur-conservatism, unless you define conservatism either in relative terms or by trying to trace historical continuity.

The relative definition (conservatives trying to conserve, i.e. favoring slower change), has some merit, because sociological studies indicate that conservatives tend to think in certain ways (cf. The Righteous Mind), but that's a tendency rather than a set of specific policies.

The historical continuity version may have some truth for a certain period of time (say back to the 1st Buckley or thereabouts), but over the longer haul of centuries, it breaks down because there are fundamental shifts in alignment. For instance, the most libertarian president of all time (Jackson) was a Democrat, the president behind the most radical change in the country was a Republican (Lincoln), and another Republican was the poster child of the Progressive Era (Teddy Roosevelt). That isn't to say that the polarity periodically flips 180 degrees -- Teddy was a imperialist individualist, too -- but that it's too limiting to try to define them by modern beliefs. What was called Democrat (or liberal) in the 1800s has little bearing on what is called Democrat or liberal in the 2020s; the landscape has shifted too much.

[Mistwell]

Question: Hey Mistwell, what actually policies of Trump did you disagree with
Mistwell: Well I am happy you asked, here are many policies I disagree with Trump on, all of which are in line with the views of the last five Republicans to receive the Presidential nomination prior to Trump.
Everyone: He lies! Those are not true conservative beliefs!

Yeah OK then. If you're going to tell me G. Bush, Bob Dole, W. Bush (nominated twice), McCain and Romney are not Republicans, you can suck it. They might not be your kind of Republicans, but they were my kind of Republicans, and the Republican party agreed they were Republicans. And given G. Bush was VP under Reagan and the party universally agreed he was Republican then too, we're talking a set of beliefs dating back at least 40 years (though I'd argue Ford also supported those policies too).

Also, on the topic of brain drain, these are people leaving their nation anyway. There is no evidence if they cannot come to the U.S. then they just stay in their home country. There is international competition to receive these kinds of immigrants, and if we tell them no they just end up in Canada, New Zealand, Australia, England, and a host of other first world nations.

[Arkansan]

Question: Hey Mistwell, what actually policies of Trump did you disagree with
Mistwell: Well I am happy you asked, here are many policies I disagree with Trump on, all of which are in line with the views of the last five Republicans to receive the Presidential nomination prior to Trump.
Everyone: He lies! Those are not true conservative beliefs!

Yeah OK then. If you're going to tell me G. Bush, Bob Dole, W. Bush (nominated twice), McCain and Romney are not Republicans, you can suck it. They might not be your kind of Republicans, but they were my kind of Republicans, and the Republican party agreed they were Republicans. And given G. Bush was VP under Reagan and the party universally agreed he was Republican then too, we're talking a set of beliefs dating back at least 40 years (though I'd argue Ford also supported those policies too).

Also, on the topic of brain drain, these are people leaving their nation anyway. There is no evidence if they cannot come to the U.S. then they just stay in their home country. There is international competition to receive these kinds of immigrants, and if we tell them no they just end up in Canada, New Zealand, Australia, England, and a host of other first world nations.

The beliefs of the Republican party or factions therein aren't the defining feature of Conservatism as a political alignment.