control? wasn’t about one state controling another. it was about all states adhering to the constitution which is the controling document.
On the other hand, it was always theoretically likely. There is nothing other than punching liberals. That’s all that’s there. An American conservative would eat dog ■■■■ if he could be sure that some liberal nearby would be annoyed by the smell.
4 Likes
the only fabrication here is your posting
It does seem to me to be an extremely difficult task to argue about federal overreach contemporaneously with one state can have a say in how another state conducts their election.
1 Like
I dunno, the ones who got vaccinated the second it became an option and still pretend like vaccines bad are even worse IMO.
5 Likes
margaretms2:
Liberty323:
toreyj01:
But why not? It never used to be so polarized, we used to have Liberal Republicans and Conservative Democrats. If we get back to that, perhaps we can get some semblance of order back. Because, to me, the GOP is in a very dark place right now and we need candidates that aren’t crazy to choose from. Who cares if they are Conservative? The district is Conservative. They aren’t crazy and respect our Constitution.
That should be all that matters at this time.
Because the definitions of liberal and conservative are not static. For example, when I think of liberal Republicans, I think of the neocons who want to keep us in perpetual wars in order to keep the Federal Reserve money printers going brrrrrr. The mainstream media considers guys like Dubya and Dick Cheney to be "ultra conservative"while the country club Republicans consider them to be “true conservatives.”The pro-war wing of the GOP would consider me a leftist because I’m against unjust wars. It’s gotten too complex for things to ever go back.
I disagree with a lot of this. But one thing I’d point out: I will believe that most of these self-identifying “anti-war” Republicans and conservatives are truly “anti-war” when there’s actually something at stake, and not a second sooner. After the ■■■■■■■■■■■■ in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s easy to be “anti-war.” ■■■■■ in 2000, even George Bush ran on “no nation-building.” Those of us who were here in the early '00s—or out protesting, or whatever—and getting called “traitors” and worse for opposing the Iraq war—should be rightly skeptical of all this easy isolationism.
I was against Iraq back then, got out of the army in 2002 because I refused to feel like a pawn of the military industrial complex anymore. All the dumbasses using phrases like “Freedom Fries” considered me a traitor and a leftist. A few years later when I touted Ron Paul, those same types called me an isolationist.
1 Like
Liberty323:
margaretms2:
Liberty323:
toreyj01:
But why not? It never used to be so polarized, we used to have Liberal Republicans and Conservative Democrats. If we get back to that, perhaps we can get some semblance of order back. Because, to me, the GOP is in a very dark place right now and we need candidates that aren’t crazy to choose from. Who cares if they are Conservative? The district is Conservative. They aren’t crazy and respect our Constitution.
That should be all that matters at this time.
Because the definitions of liberal and conservative are not static. For example, when I think of liberal Republicans, I think of the neocons who want to keep us in perpetual wars in order to keep the Federal Reserve money printers going brrrrrr. The mainstream media considers guys like Dubya and Dick Cheney to be "ultra conservative"while the country club Republicans consider them to be “true conservatives.”The pro-war wing of the GOP would consider me a leftist because I’m against unjust wars. It’s gotten too complex for things to ever go back.
I disagree with a lot of this. But one thing I’d point out: I will believe that most of these self-identifying “anti-war” Republicans and conservatives are truly “anti-war” when there’s actually something at stake, and not a second sooner. After the ■■■■■■■■■■■■ in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s easy to be “anti-war.” ■■■■■ in 2000, even George Bush ran on “no nation-building.” Those of us who were here in the early '00s—or out protesting, or whatever—and getting called “traitors” and worse for opposing the Iraq war—should be rightly skeptical of all this easy isolationism.
I was against Iraq back then, got out of the army in 2002 because I refused to feel like a pawn of the military industrial complex anymore. All the dumbasses using phrases like “Freedom Fries” considered me a traitor and a leftist. A few years later when I touted Ron Paul, those same types called me an isolationist.
I accept that. There were Republicans and conservatives like that. They were the RINOS back then, called such by many of the same people here calling Liz Cheney a RINO now for not wanting to let Donald Trump destroy the election. The Venn diagram of those two groups (Pro-Trump, Hard-on for the Iraq war) is fairly overlapping.
2 Likes
Jezcoe
September 22, 2021, 4:14pm
69
The complaint was based on completely fabricated claims of election fraud.
I wouldn’t be surprised if in the future a memo is found connects Ken Paxton to the same shenanigans laid out in the Eastman memo to reverse the election that Trump lost.
margaretms2:
I accept that. There were Republicans and conservatives like that. They were the RINOS back then, called such by many of the same people here calling Liz Cheney a RINO now for not wanting to let Donald Trump destroy the election. The Venn diagram of those two groups (Pro-Trump, Hard-on for the Iraq war) is fairly overlapping.
They’re still all neocons. They’re knee jerk reaction to getting what they supposedly wanted in A-Stan proves that.
1 Like
Orygun
September 22, 2021, 4:15pm
71
As someone who has been on this board for the last 15 years, that has been one of the most fascinating things I have witnessed. All those hardcore “With us or against us” “freedom fry” republicans undoubtedly voted for Trump and are now rabid anti-war isolationists. At least for now.
4 Likes
Most of the hardcore, “freedom fry” Republicans I know still want to nuke the Middle East. The one thing I was truly happy about with Trump was the lack of new wars, and the way he handled the drone situation with Iran. Dubya, Cheney and John Bolton would have been salivating at the opportunity to bomb Iran.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/latest-dutch-klm-avoid-area-iran-shootdown-63856502
you really should read the bill of complaint before you attempt to characterize it. we’ll never know whether its complaints were valid, because no court will ever hear it. you are of course free to wrongly assert what the court did say and insert what it is you wanted to hear. doesn’t change a thing.
Guilds
September 22, 2021, 4:26pm
74
Very true…but that is a very low bar. “Don’t be crazy!!”
But I agree…I would rather have a sane conservative, than a Trump like pol in that seat.
1 Like
margaretms2:
toreyj01:
This will be fairly interesting.
I am of the opinion that the Dems need to start thinking about the bigger picture here, that there are some congressional districts that are so Conservative that running a Liberal there is pointless. These candidates are often underfunded because you don’t want to waste money on a losing cause.
So, why are the parties only aligned by Liberal vs. Conservative? Why not align it by folks who adhere to the Constitution to those gravitating towards authoritarian tendencies? Why not take the Republicans in who are defending our democracy and are now facing primaries in their deep red districts?
Sure, they won’t vote with the Liberals most of the time, that is okay. But we keep control of both houses of congress and we keep the lunatics at bay until the GOPs fever dream passes and they start acting rationally again.
> So, why are the parties only aligned by Liberal vs. Conservative? Why not align it by folks who adhere to the Constitution to those gravitating towards authoritarian tendencies? Why not take the Republicans in who are defending our democracy and are now facing primaries in their deep red districts?
It would be good (in theory) if the parties could be chopped up into smaller, more provisional factions and shifting coalitions. But keep in mind: those who are more authoritarian will almost always stake their position on the claim that they are following the constitution.
Well, they’re already crazy, so they can say what they want.
Just like using the rubber/glue tactic when it comes to authoritarianism, somehow trying to steal an election and storming the capital to stop the certification isn’t bad, but public health policies we have used for a century are.
To me, I would make it an open invite for any GOP Congressperson from a reliable Red state or district that if they vote their conscience and wind up facing a nasty primary, don’t fuss, we will run you as a Democrat without opposition and you can face the crazy person in the general election. And we will fund you nicely.
They only have to caucus with us, they can vote as they normally would.
These are seats we have no chance with, what is wrong with diversifying our approach and introducing a counter to the progressives which have been hindering us as Democrats. If we can get enough Conservatives the Progressives won’t be able to hold every bill hostage.
It is a win/win to me.
1 Like
Jezcoe
September 22, 2021, 4:30pm
76
Ben_Natuf:
you really should read the bill of complaint before you attempt to characterize it. we’ll never know whether its complaints were valid, because no court will ever hear it. you are of course free to wrongly assert what the court did say and insert what it is you wanted to hear. doesn’t change a thing.
One of the claims is that poll watchers HAVE to be present while the ballots are being counted.
That is false.
Jezcoe
September 22, 2021, 4:31pm
77
toreyj01:
margaretms2:
toreyj01:
This will be fairly interesting.
I am of the opinion that the Dems need to start thinking about the bigger picture here, that there are some congressional districts that are so Conservative that running a Liberal there is pointless. These candidates are often underfunded because you don’t want to waste money on a losing cause.
So, why are the parties only aligned by Liberal vs. Conservative? Why not align it by folks who adhere to the Constitution to those gravitating towards authoritarian tendencies? Why not take the Republicans in who are defending our democracy and are now facing primaries in their deep red districts?
Sure, they won’t vote with the Liberals most of the time, that is okay. But we keep control of both houses of congress and we keep the lunatics at bay until the GOPs fever dream passes and they start acting rationally again.
> So, why are the parties only aligned by Liberal vs. Conservative? Why not align it by folks who adhere to the Constitution to those gravitating towards authoritarian tendencies? Why not take the Republicans in who are defending our democracy and are now facing primaries in their deep red districts?
It would be good (in theory) if the parties could be chopped up into smaller, more provisional factions and shifting coalitions. But keep in mind: those who are more authoritarian will almost always stake their position on the claim that they are following the constitution.
Well, they’re already crazy, so they can say what they want.
Just like using the rubber/glue tactic when it comes to authoritarianism, somehow trying to steal an election and storming the capital to stop the certification isn’t bad, but public health policies we have used for a century are.
To me, I would make it an open invite for any GOP Congressperson from a reliable Red state or district that if they vote their conscience and wind up facing a nasty primary, don’t fuss, we will run you as a Democrat without opposition and you can face the crazy person in the general election. And we will fund you nicely.
They only have to caucus with us, they can vote as they normally would.
These are seats we have no chance with, what is wrong with diversifying our approach and introducing a counter to the progressives which have been hindering us as Democrats. If we can get enough Conservatives the Progressives won’t be able to hold every bill hostage.
It is a win/win to me.
I think the Democrats would lose the progressive wing over that and split the party.
and one is that secretaries of state have no legal authority to change election laws passed by their legislatures. that is true.
whether poll watchers have to be present would depend on each states laws, so it may be true for one but not another.
2 Likes
Jezcoe
September 22, 2021, 4:34pm
81
But it isn’t. The complaint was garbage. There was no way they were going to win it. It was all part of the big lie.
