cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
he’ll be reelected unless he ends up indicted
Examples of GOP Leadership
- Thread starter injinji
- Start date
Bagginski
Well-Known Member
I fundamentally disagree, but…go for it
Won’t deny it, but there’s the recency thing: that wasn’t the original plan.
The original plan went more like this: https://alec.org/publication/article-v-handbook/
If this is your first exposure to ALEC, the “American Legislative Exchange Council”, you might want to look around & take notes: ALEC is the source of copycat legislation that shows up all over the country as “issues” sweep through (some parts of) the media (“legislative exchange”, get it?).
Did I mention that corporations can be full members of ALEC - as can any sitting lawmakers willing to accept a free (sponsored) membership?
Last edited:
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
aiee! Libertarian Apocalypse.
Bagginski
Well-Known Member
Sorry, back on track. Time frame, cause & effect come into play when considering the timeline. Not intending to assert mine as correct. Onward!
So a bunch of core indicators began turning around in the midst of Trumps first year, but GOP generally had become less and less solid as the party voices went chasing the fringe, and EVERYTHING started making it seem like GOP were all equally crazy through out the term. Still, like I say, the more extreme the less support. This was in part because of the increasing radicalization of of the voices: true conservatives are rightly spooked by extreme language from known sources of trouble.
Slow process. I could say the first big crack was at practically any point, and I could make a point in its favor, but I come back to the 2018 midterms: GOP had been on the March for decades, and they had almost enough governors, state legislatures, & seats in congress to force an article 5 convention, adopt a pre written constitution (like the one Chile just finally replaced), and have it ratified & signed before anyone could read it who was outside the effort. I tensely anticipated that the few remaining that they needed would be theirs following the election.
I was wrong. Instead of gaining the few they needed, they lost state power all over the map (not totally unlike this midterm past in some ways). They could try again some other time, but there was more in motion than just that, and those things couldn’t really be stopped. It wasn’t supposed to be about Trump at all, but about imposing a new, billionaire-friendly constitution on the nation, but they had momentum, they had inertia, they had their now-hair-afire “troops” worked up. They couldn’t just close up shop.
Being at this point in it up to their hairlines, they pulled out a whipped-together Plan B, a hodgepodge of bolted-together ideological parts and the usual suspects, in one last desperate lunge to grab the brass ring & all the marbles via “direct action”. Pull it off, and they’re all scot free & buying rounds, right?
So a bunch of core indicators began turning around in the midst of Trumps first year, but GOP generally had become less and less solid as the party voices went chasing the fringe, and EVERYTHING started making it seem like GOP were all equally crazy through out the term. Still, like I say, the more extreme the less support. This was in part because of the increasing radicalization of of the voices: true conservatives are rightly spooked by extreme language from known sources of trouble.
Slow process. I could say the first big crack was at practically any point, and I could make a point in its favor, but I come back to the 2018 midterms: GOP had been on the March for decades, and they had almost enough governors, state legislatures, & seats in congress to force an article 5 convention, adopt a pre written constitution (like the one Chile just finally replaced), and have it ratified & signed before anyone could read it who was outside the effort. I tensely anticipated that the few remaining that they needed would be theirs following the election.
I was wrong. Instead of gaining the few they needed, they lost state power all over the map (not totally unlike this midterm past in some ways). They could try again some other time, but there was more in motion than just that, and those things couldn’t really be stopped. It wasn’t supposed to be about Trump at all, but about imposing a new, billionaire-friendly constitution on the nation, but they had momentum, they had inertia, they had their now-hair-afire “troops” worked up. They couldn’t just close up shop.
Being at this point in it up to their hairlines, they pulled out a whipped-together Plan B, a hodgepodge of bolted-together ideological parts and the usual suspects, in one last desperate lunge to grab the brass ring & all the marbles via “direct action”. Pull it off, and they’re all scot free & buying rounds, right?
Bagginski
Well-Known Member
A fist made of 2x4s…
Last edited:
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Coffee makes you WOKE! I sure as shit hope so!
If the magats boycott coffee they will suffer withdrawal, while coffee prices drop for the rest of us from lack of demand! In war sacrifices have to be made, cause they is taking over!
www.theguardian.com
If the magats boycott coffee they will suffer withdrawal, while coffee prices drop for the rest of us from lack of demand! In war sacrifices have to be made, cause they is taking over!
Woke’s no joke: breakfast cafe’s name awakens US conservative ire
Carmen Quiroga called her cafe ‘Woke’ to signal to customers ‘Wake up and have a coffee’. What could possibly go wrong?
www.theguardian.com
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
just you wait. Culture war will be coming to Chinese eateries for having WOK on the name.Coffee makes you WOKE! I sure as shit hope so!
If the magats boycott coffee they will suffer withdrawal, while coffee prices drop for the rest of us from lack of demand! In war sacrifices have to be made, cause they is taking over!
Woke’s no joke: breakfast cafe’s name awakens US conservative ire
Carmen Quiroga called her cafe ‘Woke’ to signal to customers ‘Wake up and have a coffee’. What could possibly go wrong?
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Actually I think it will work out OK for her, lot's of publicity, if she was located near a university...
Seriously, someone should promote the coffee boycott among the Trumpers, have you seen the price of coffee lately? Using social media to inflict suffering on fools and reduce demand might not be completely ethical, but it could be marginally profitable...
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
right but not right.
I made it to page 12 in that thing. It was about the process of using state legislatures to write amendments to the constitution, yes. But no, it was not about writing a billionaire friendly constitution. It was about circumventing congress to institute a balanced budget amendment. Aren't you making a leap of faith in interpreting that roadmap as being something other than what the document says it is about?
Somewhere in all this gobbledygook I've seen the Kochs mentioned. Google ALEC and Koch Bros. Their fingerprints, footprints, nose prints, lip prints and dick prints show up everywhere regarding ALEC. The Kochs oppose Trump primarily due to Trump's actions against their idea of free trade but also other actions by Trump that did not align with their more traditional conservative ideology. So, I'm not so sure that the cabal behind ALEC were also behind Jan 6. ALEC -- at least the one portrayed in that link you provided -- was about acting legally within the framework of constitution. Trump's actions on Jan 6 were outside and prohibited by the constitution. Trump's followers inside and outside of congress wanted nothing to do with the constitution, they were about installing Trump as the supreme authority and his word the law of the land. It was about fascism, not reshaping the constitutional republic into a more billionaire friendly one. Trump wasn't planning on sharing. Which may be why he failed.
Last edited:
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Completely agree that Jan 6 was a hastily enacted attempted antidemocratic coup that was the outcome of Republicans losing their grip on power through the elections of 2018 and 2020. The roadmap for state enacted amendments to the constitution was written in 2012, a time they were nearing the apex of their power. 2016 marked their time of maximum power in office but maybe not with the public. It was 2017 when they took off their masks and there was no question who was in control and what they planned to do. They went after the ACA, Medicare and Medicaid and the public woke up to the fact that Republicans aren't just the smiley face of Reagan but were hard core radicals who didn't care if tens of millions of people lost access to healthcare or lost rights they once thought safe, including reproductive rights, the right to vote and the right to privacy.
So, while I don't know if I can agree that ALEC and the cabal behind it are why we got Trump and Jan 6. I do agree that Republicans have become more radical, more violent, more antidemocratic and more fascist as they saw their grip on power slip from their grasp.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Considering how many older voters the republicans have, social security and Medicare should be third rails for them! This is seriously stupid policy and asking people to fuck themselves over an unpopular agenda.
Let's talk about Social Security and why the GOP is going after it....
Let's talk about Social Security and why the GOP is going after it....
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
Well this is stupid.. As much as I support fiscal reforms, this isn't the way to do it. The money was already approved, if they want fiscal reform, then they should figure out how to do it by way of the budgetary process.
thehill.com
Twenty-four GOP senators warn they will oppose debt limit increase without fiscal reforms
Nearly half of the Senate Republican Conference has signed on to a letter to President Biden warning they will not vote for any bill to raise the nation’s debt limit unless it’s connected to spendi…
thehill.com
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
The Atlantic: Some Republicans 'can't wait' for Trump to die
4,531 views Jan 31, 2023 #msnbc #republicans #trump
Staff Writer for The Atlantic, McKay Coppins, joins MSNBC's Ali Velshi to discuss his reporting that finds many in the GOP want Trump out of the way before 2024 and are secretly hoping his health or an indictment will solve their problem.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I otoh want him to have downright unnatural longevity. It will obviously not happen overnight, but more than one big conviction is headed his way. I don’t want him missing out.
As for his being indicted boosting his stature with the base, perhaps. A conviction otoh will have the other effect (again, not overnight) - by his own principle that nobody loves a loser.
I wish him many years in a place not of his choosing, where he will (or not) be induced to meditate upon these things.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Extending upon what Bagginski brought up.
www.nytimes.com
A new book by a former Democratic senator warns of the risks of allowing states to call for a convention. Some in the G.O.P. see it as the only way to rein in the federal government.
“I think the states are due a convention,” said Mr. Arrington, who in July introduced legislation to direct the archivist of the United States to tally applications for a convention from state legislatures and compel Congress to schedule a gathering when enough states have petitioned for one. “It is time to rally the states and rein in Washington responsibly.”
To Russ Feingold, the former Democratic senator from Wisconsin and president of the American Constitution Society, a liberal judicial group, that is a terrible idea. Mr. Feingold sees the prospect of a constitutional convention as an exceptionally dangerous threat from the right and suggests it is closer to reality than most people realize as Republicans push to retake control of Congress in November’s midterm elections.
Confirming what Baggs was pointing out:
Elements on the right have for years been waging a quiet but concerted campaign to convene a gathering to consider changes to the Constitution. They hope to take advantage of a never-used aspect of Article V, which says in part that Congress, “on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments.”
Some members of the radical right are claiming there are already enough petitions in place to hold a Contituitional Convention. Yet it's not clear what the agenda of this right wing theft of government in the form of a constitutional convention would be:
“The problem is that they haven’t had a ministerial, clerical mechanism for the archivist to keep a count (of petitions for a CC) and report to Congress,” Mr. Arrington said. “I do believe we have crossed that threshold, and it is not congressional discretion — it is a constitutional mandate — that Congress should pick a date and a place for the convention.”
Like others, the proposal by Mr. Arrington, a deficit hawk who hopes to become Budget Committee chairman next year, would seek to confine the convention to consideration of fiscal matters to serve as a check on federal spending and taxation.
But not necessarily so:
Russ Feingold, the former Democratic senator from Wisconsin and president of the American Constitution Society and his co-author, the constitutional scholar Peter Prindiville, say the problem is that there is no certainty that the convention could be forced to stick to a defined agenda. They say a “runaway” proceeding would be a distinct possibility, with delegates seizing the opportunity to promote wholesale changes in the founding document and veer into areas where they would seek to restrict federal power governing the environment, education and health care, among other issues.
Not to overblow the risk but just pointing out that IF a Constitutional Convention were to reach the 34 state threshold needed to make it a mandate (22 states that have called for one thus far but that's debatable), the number of delegates and selection criteria have not been defined. Some states (small ones) are calling for ONE delegate from each state, which would stack the number of delegates strongly in favor of radical right wingers.
www.exposedbycmd.org
Also note that the electorate plays no role. It's entirely up to state legislatures and population size of a state doesn't matter. At least not to the people pushing the hardest for this thing.
As Feingold said:
“If you think this is democracy’s moment of truth, this is one of those things,” he said.
I don't think this has much to do with Trump or Jan 6 but it does have much to do with the attack on US democracy that the radical right have been been waging upon this country. I would not want today's Supreme Court to make a ruling on this.
A Second Constitutional Convention? Some Republicans Want to Force One (Published 2022)
A new book by a former Democratic senator warns of the risks of allowing states to call for a convention. Some in the G.O.P. see it as the only way to rein in the federal government.
- Sept. 4, 2022
A new book by a former Democratic senator warns of the risks of allowing states to call for a convention. Some in the G.O.P. see it as the only way to rein in the federal government.
“I think the states are due a convention,” said Mr. Arrington, who in July introduced legislation to direct the archivist of the United States to tally applications for a convention from state legislatures and compel Congress to schedule a gathering when enough states have petitioned for one. “It is time to rally the states and rein in Washington responsibly.”
To Russ Feingold, the former Democratic senator from Wisconsin and president of the American Constitution Society, a liberal judicial group, that is a terrible idea. Mr. Feingold sees the prospect of a constitutional convention as an exceptionally dangerous threat from the right and suggests it is closer to reality than most people realize as Republicans push to retake control of Congress in November’s midterm elections.
Confirming what Baggs was pointing out:
Elements on the right have for years been waging a quiet but concerted campaign to convene a gathering to consider changes to the Constitution. They hope to take advantage of a never-used aspect of Article V, which says in part that Congress, “on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments.”
Some members of the radical right are claiming there are already enough petitions in place to hold a Contituitional Convention. Yet it's not clear what the agenda of this right wing theft of government in the form of a constitutional convention would be:
“The problem is that they haven’t had a ministerial, clerical mechanism for the archivist to keep a count (of petitions for a CC) and report to Congress,” Mr. Arrington said. “I do believe we have crossed that threshold, and it is not congressional discretion — it is a constitutional mandate — that Congress should pick a date and a place for the convention.”
Like others, the proposal by Mr. Arrington, a deficit hawk who hopes to become Budget Committee chairman next year, would seek to confine the convention to consideration of fiscal matters to serve as a check on federal spending and taxation.
But not necessarily so:
Russ Feingold, the former Democratic senator from Wisconsin and president of the American Constitution Society and his co-author, the constitutional scholar Peter Prindiville, say the problem is that there is no certainty that the convention could be forced to stick to a defined agenda. They say a “runaway” proceeding would be a distinct possibility, with delegates seizing the opportunity to promote wholesale changes in the founding document and veer into areas where they would seek to restrict federal power governing the environment, education and health care, among other issues.
Not to overblow the risk but just pointing out that IF a Constitutional Convention were to reach the 34 state threshold needed to make it a mandate (22 states that have called for one thus far but that's debatable), the number of delegates and selection criteria have not been defined. Some states (small ones) are calling for ONE delegate from each state, which would stack the number of delegates strongly in favor of radical right wingers.
Voters Have No Role to Play in the Right’s Vision of a Constitutional Convention - EXPOSEDbyCMD
CMD releases “Convention of State Politicians,” a new report documenting how a constitutional convention would give hand-picked GOP delegates supermajority control over any proposed amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Also note that the electorate plays no role. It's entirely up to state legislatures and population size of a state doesn't matter. At least not to the people pushing the hardest for this thing.
As Feingold said:
“If you think this is democracy’s moment of truth, this is one of those things,” he said.
I don't think this has much to do with Trump or Jan 6 but it does have much to do with the attack on US democracy that the radical right have been been waging upon this country. I would not want today's Supreme Court to make a ruling on this.
Last edited:
Democracy won out- they'll never have that shot again..I'm not going to get into Trumps Billionaire Friendly Tax Cut or anything else he did to lick their assess since he thought he was one of them- they used his ass to the nth level. Jokes on you Trump.
Saw a reporter from Wash. Post on news this morn., shes digging deep on the state of politics in the US and how social media has enabled extremists are enabled to consolidate their views and influence the rep. party,and how the Constitution's framers had no way to anticipate this modern digital phenomenon that's hijacked the political discourse,she also states that the House of Reps. originally had a ratio of 1/30k and is now at 1/750K which advocates for a uncapping of house membership #'s. This could go a long way towards a complete redrawing of these ridiculous gerrymandered districts while also increasing the representation ratios,another 200-250 seats w/more geographically sensible districts would be good. As for the effect of social media in politics I think the loss of print media has had a major effect here,even if physical newspapers are unpopular they still could be consumed online,it's the loss of a vetted news product w/oversight,and confirmable sourcing that is enabling this misinformation,conspiracy spewing news in a tunnel BS that now pervades our society. I think philanthropy can help here in the establishment of non profit newspapers funded by well healed donors,conservative or progressive,who lament the lack of vetted,reliable impartial,objective news. The loss of all the print newspapers at the local level is stunning,driven by money hungry shareholders and conglomerates which were allowed to gobble up portfolios of local newspapers. Maybe it's to late or unfeasable to rectify this,but this loss combined w/the proliferation of unverified online news sourcing/ social media radicalization has blurred reality and empowered fringe beliefs into the mainstream.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Local news died as we all went online, magazines were the first to go along with local newspapers and with them went editors and local reporters. The same thing happened with TV and radio as it went from local to state, then regional news, when market share became diluted with more options. It is this lack of local news reporting and lack of local community engagement that brought you George Santos, an online fraudulent image from an internet scammer with no one from the local press or TV station to take a close look at him.
One hundred years or more ago people read newspapers, there was not much information around, news was local and newspapers were highly partisan, but each community was served by several, national and international news came by telegraph or later by phone. Today most people have almost unlimited entertainment possibilities, TV with hundreds of channels, the internet, vast libraries of music and movies, games, virtual worlds, sports leagues, the list is endless. Politics ranks pretty low on the list of priorities for most people with all the other things to attend to besides work and family commitments.
The world is changing and people must adapt or die, like the republicans will sooner or later, they don't like change and resist it and in doing so increase their suffering. Yesterdays conservatives are todays liberals, even they too move forward by dying off, if for no other reason and attitudes of conservatives become what was once liberal at one time, though they are consistently behind the curve. Cultures can be left behind too and go extinct, when the can't change they die and there are countless examples in history. The culture wars are about a people who are under siege (or made to believe so) by change and modernity and the agent of that change is liberal democracy which fosters social justice and progress.