R.I.P. Republican Party

Dawgdad wrote:

tincup1215 wrote:This is a very naive question...

Is there any chance or desire for the Republican party to splinter off and distance itself from Trump?  Form a new party?

That is the “old “ Republican Party   The RINO group will just resurface.  The better question is will the Americans with ideals more aligned with Trump form a party and try to pull in moderate Democrats as they move farther left.

It could quite possibly happen, I think Trump winning was definitely a result of the TEA Party movement and once the Republicans realized the support they leaned more toward that further right ideology. Obviously, right now many are moving away from the "Trump Ideology," but I think there is a larger movement quietly and slowly brewing. The rural folks want to be heard and the standard has been set by the BLM protests over the summer in how to create change. Honestly it is not how it should happen but sadly this is where we are in America.

dusty7 wrote: The rural folks want to be heard and the standard has been set by the BLM protests over the summer in how to create change. Honestly it is not how it should happen but sadly this is where we are in America.    

What change do you think the BLM protests affected?

I'm sure there is something, but I cant put my finger on it.

Teetime wrote:

dusty7 wrote: The rural folks want to be heard and the standard has been set by the BLM protests over the summer in how to create change. Honestly it is not how it should happen but sadly this is where we are in America.    

What change do you think the BLM protests affected?

I'm sure there is something, but I cant put my finger on it.

The police reforms that have taken place across the nation, some changes were definitely needed and the protests made more people aware of the issue, and now new laws are being created to protect the rights of those accused of crimes and providing more assistance for social work. Many reforms are not addressing the real issue of increased training and funding but I hope that will come in time. I may not agree with the way some states (Illinois) have gone about making the reform but reform was definitely need.

Obviously, I think the protests had an influence on the election, more at the local/state level where the issue is more problematic than the Presidential election but it did play some role.

These protests had some negative effects as well such as showing that violence and rioting do have an effect and the just the fear or threat of more violence can create change more quickly. I think we are seeing this happen at the Capitol as we speak. Also, the increased "cancel culture," which started more with the Me Too movement but is now getting out of hand where some people want people such as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln erased from history because they either owned slaves or did not do enough to stop slavery.

BirdWatcher wrote:One question I missed during the impeachment debate: If the FBI was warning about a January 6 attack ahead of the event, how did Trump's speech cause it?

If the FBI was warning about an attack ahead of the event, an event which Trump himself had been promoting for weeks, Trump must have been aware of that warning from his own FBI, right?  

Assuming he was aware, why did he stoke the fires of that crowd in front of him at the rally and call on them to march down to the Capitol?  If he was aware, why didn't he tell them to disperse peacefully and to stay away from the Capitol?  

If he WASN'T aware, why wasn't he?

He TOLD the rally that he would march with them to the Capitol and he didn't.  He WANTED them to march to the Capitol, and he knew he would get even more people to march to the Capitol if he told them that he was going to march with them (what's one more lie on top of thousands?).  I believe he had NO INTENTION of marching with them because his plan all along was to whip the crowd into a frenzy, and he knew in advance that things were likely going to get dicey at the Capitol.

tincup1215 wrote:This is a very naive question...

Is there any chance or desire for the Republican party to splinter off and distance itself from Trump?  Form a new party?

I think what is more likely is for Trumpians to splinter off from the GOP than the other way around.  After what has happened over the past couple of weeks, I think we have passed the point of no return for those diehard Trumpians and other nutjobs on the far right.  I can't imagine them wanting to continue their affiliation with the party establishment that they feel betrayed them.  There are a lot of Republicans in the center and left of center segments of the full Republican array who probably wouldn't vote for Trump for President now if you paid them.  Bring on a revote and Trump MAYBE gets 60 million votes due to his batshit crazy behavior (as opposed to his typical crazy ass behavior) since the election.

[url=https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/14/opinions/trump-gop-lost-soul-opinion-dent/index.html]https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/14/opinions/trump-gop-lost-soul-opinion-dent/index.html[/url

Trump is out for revenge. He NEVER allows anyone to wrong him without retribution. He NEVER accepts responsibility for his failures, and he ALWAYS looks to others for convenient scapegoats. He will do whatever he thinks does the most damage to the ones who wronged him. He could try to work within the system to support congressional and gubernatorial candidates sympathetic to him in Republican primaries featuring incumbents who he feels betrayed him. Or, he could splinter off his lemmings and create a third party. Honestly, I think he will do whichever he thinks does the most damage at the least financial cost to him. Frankly, I hope it's the latter and not the former.

To this day Trump hasn’t called Biden to concede. This lie that he continued to perpetuate that he really won but the Election was stolen from him brought all this on. Now we know the potential dangers of having a mentally unstable person in the White House.

Can you feel the unity tonight?

“I wonder if you have thought through kind of how Republicans begin what someone on my team earlier today called de-Baathification of the Republican Party?” Reid asked Wallace on Wednesday night, likening the GOP to Iraq’s Ba’ath Party and suggesting Republican influence and ideology needs to be eradicated from American society the same way Iraq sought to remove the Ba’ath Party influence from its own politic

https://thefederalist.com/2021/01/14/msnbcs-joy-reid-calls-for-de-baathification-of-the-gop/

ramblinman wrote:

tincup1215 wrote:This is a very naive question...

Is there any chance or desire for the Republican party to splinter off and distance itself from Trump?  Form a new party?

I think what is more likely is for Trumpians to splinter off from the GOP than the other way around.  After what has happened over the past couple of weeks, I think we have passed the point of no return for those diehard Trumpians and other nutjobs on the far right.  I can't imagine them wanting to continue their affiliation with the party establishment that they feel betrayed them.  There are a lot of Republicans in the center and left of center segments of the full Republican array who probably wouldn't vote for Trump for President now if you paid them.  Bring on a revote and Trump MAYBE gets 60 million votes due to his batshit crazy behavior (as opposed to his typical crazy ass behavior) since the election.

[url=https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/14/opinions/trump-gop-lost-soul-opinion-dent/index.html]https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/14/opinions/trump-gop-lost-soul-opinion-dent/index.html[/url

Trump is out for revenge.  He NEVER allows anyone to wrong him without retribution.  He NEVER accepts responsibility for his failures, and he ALWAYS looks to others for convenient scapegoats.  He will do whatever he thinks does the most damage to the ones who wronged him.  He could try to work within the system to support congressional and gubernatorial candidates sympathetic to him in Republican primaries featuring incumbents who he feels betrayed him.  Or, he could splinter off his lemmings and create a third party.  Honestly, I think he will do whichever he thinks does the most damage at the least financial cost to him.  Frankly, I hope it's the latter and not the former.

this poll says 91%
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/91-25-of-trump-voters-sticking-by-him-despite-capitol-hill-riot-poll/ar-BB1cISK6

tps wrote:this poll says 91%
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/91-25-of-trump-voters-sticking-by-him-despite-capitol-hill-riot-poll/ar-BB1cISK6

The poll was conducted by Frank Luntz.
From Wikipedia: "Frank Ian Luntz is an American political and communications consultant, pollster and pundit, best known for developing talking points and other messaging for Republican causes"
From PBS: "Frank Luntz is a strategist and pollster who has worked on behalf of the Republican Party for nearly three decades."
From Fox News: "Republican pollster Frank Luntz told Fox News’ "Media Buzz" on Sunday that the credibility of his profession has been irreversibly damaged after President Trump outperformed polls for a second straight presidential election."

He thinks all pollsters but him are terrible. Surely an unimpeachable source.

OSUBucks wrote:To this day Trump hasn’t called Biden to concede. This lie that he continued to perpetuate that he really won but the Election was stolen from him brought all this on. Now we know the potential dangers of having a mentally unstable person in the White House.

I have a feeling that Joe will not be getting a phone call.

Does a President in mental decline, which some suggest that Biden is showing signs of the early stages of dementia, worry you as well? Reagan was president and had Alzheimers, I don't think it had much of an effect on his decision making, other than the whole Iran/Contra Affair, which, maybe he just forgot

dusty7 wrote:which some suggest that Biden is showing signs of the early stages of dementia,

Honest question:  Who, besides a Republican talking head, columnist, politician, etc. has ever said Biden may be in the early stages of dementia?  

I did a quick search and came up empty.  It kind of sounds like one of Trump's "Lots of people are saying...." kind of statements.  But it was a quick search, so maybe you have something I haven't seen.

Also, just for the record....
The first presidential election I could vote in was in 1992.  I voted for Bush, Dole, W., W., Obama, Obama, Clinton, Biden.

I am 5-3, which is better than my team did last year. You know....in football. Which we talk about here sometimes.

Huck wrote:

tps wrote:this poll says 91%
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/91-25-of-trump-voters-sticking-by-him-despite-capitol-hill-riot-poll/ar-BB1cISK6

The poll was conducted by Frank Luntz.  
From Wikipedia:  "Frank Ian Luntz is an American political and communications consultant, pollster and pundit, best known for developing talking points and other messaging for Republican causes"  
From PBS:  "Frank Luntz is a strategist and pollster who has worked on behalf of the Republican Party for nearly three decades."  
From Fox News:  "Republican pollster Frank Luntz told Fox News’ "Media Buzz" on Sunday that the credibility of his profession has been irreversibly damaged after President Trump outperformed polls for a second straight presidential election."

He thinks all pollsters but him are terrible.  Surely an unimpeachable source.

i could have guessed 60 million

tps wrote:i could have guessed 60 million

Maybe I am missing something obvious, but I do not understand what your comment has to do with.  What am I missing?

Are you referring to the number of people who would still vote for him?

Why?

Is it that you could have said you guessed instead of citing something?

Huck wrote:

tps wrote:i could have guessed 60 million

Maybe I am missing something obvious, but I do not understand what your comment has to do with.  What am I missing?

Are you referring to the number of people who would still vote for him?

Why?

Is it that you could have said you guessed instead of citing something?

i replied to the guy who guessed 60 million.

Huck wrote:
I am 5-3, which is better than my team did last year.  You know....in football.  Which we talk about here sometimes.

What in the currently exciting world of HS football do you wish to talk about?

The truth is, the football only topics only garner a dozen responses at best. If this were a football only site as some bemoan they want, you'd get about twenty posts a week. The four football only posts that have been started in the past two/three weeks have 44 posts between them.

Huck wrote:

dusty7 wrote:which some suggest that Biden is showing signs of the early stages of dementia,

Honest question:  Who, besides a Republican talking head, columnist, politician, etc. has ever said Biden may be in the early stages of dementia?  

I did a quick search and came up empty.  It kind of sounds like one of Trump's "Lots of people are saying...." kind of statements.  But it was a quick search, so maybe you have something I haven't seen.

All I am saying is that "some people" have suggested it.  It is not uncommon for people in their late 70s to early 80s to show signs of cognitive decline. At his advanced age, he is at risk for a multitude of different medical emergencies that could render him unable to fulfill to duties of the President. He has a history of brain aneurysm (1988). I'm not saying he has it but he has a fairly high chance of developing it and do we want a President making decisions in a questionable mental state? Some will argue we've had an unstable mental president for the past 4 years but physician screenings have shown that claim in untrue.

Between five and eight percent of adults above 65 have dementia. That number doubles every five years – so, 10-16 percent over 70, 20-32 percent over 75, perhaps 25-35 percent over 77.  Thus, Biden’s chances of dementia – on hard science – lie between 1 in 4, and 1 in 3.

http://www.bu.edu/articles/2020/oldest-president-elected-joe-biden/
https://min.amac.us/mental-slips-is-biden-fit/

Head Idiot wrote:What in the currently exciting world of HS football do you wish to talk about?

The truth is, the football only topics only garner a dozen responses at best. If this were a football only site as some bemoan they want, you'd get about twenty posts a week. The four football only posts that have been started in the past two/three weeks have 44 posts between them.

Lighten up, Francis. You took that wrong. Just trying to add a little levity. Why so defensive?

Huck wrote:

Head Idiot wrote:What in the currently exciting world of HS football do you wish to talk about?

The truth is, the football only topics only garner a dozen responses at best. If this were a football only site as some bemoan they want, you'd get about twenty posts a week. The four football only posts that have been started in the past two/three weeks have 44 posts between them.

Lighten up, Francis.  You took that wrong.  Just trying to add a little levity.  Why so defensive?

I get really annoyed by the "well this used to be a football site" bemoaning.

No one talks about football here. They never really have.

It's really grating now considering the ones who bemoan it the most now are the ones most in favor of not having football currently. (Not only aimed at you.)

Head Idiot wrote:Not only aimed at you.

This assumes I am one that is bemoaning it. I just said I wasn't.

Huck wrote:

Head Idiot wrote:Not only aimed at you.

This assumes I am one that is bemoaning it.  I just said I wasn't.

I know this, but as one of the most vocal supporters of not playing currently, I did not want you to feel the post was aimed directly at you.

Cool. I did not realize I was one of the most vocal supporters of not playing currently.

Huck wrote:Cool.   I did not realize I was one of the most vocal supporters of not playing currently.

On this site, you wrote the longest, most eloquent defense for not currently playing.

That equals the most vocal around here usually.

Head Idiot wrote:It's really grating now considering the ones who bemoan it the most now are the ones most in favor of not having football currently.

What grates on me (and this is not aimed at Head Idiot in any way, shape, or form, just his quote prompted the topic for me) is how those who think we should be playing now due to the negative mental effects it is having on athletes are relying on "experts" to demonstrate that this is true, when they do not trust other people's "experts" as to the medical risks.  It is still way too early for anyone to know what the long lasting effects of this pandemic will be on anyone mentally or physically.  My opinion about football is based solely on that:  my opinion.

I keep thinking about being a party to an activity that could result in the death of a young man when it could be avoided.  With facing parents and players after a death when if I had had the courage to take a stand, it could have been avoided.  I am simply not comfortable with it.  If you think I am being overly dramatic or overemphasizing Covid, then so be it.  When the time comes where the state, IHSA, and my school say it is time to play, I will have to decide if I am comfortable with it at that point.  If I am not, I should resign.  I am grateful so far to be on the same side with those delaying playing so I do not have to face that decision, because I do not want to resign.  And for those who might bring up other bad things that could happen to anyone on the street, or on the football field, all I can say is that I am comfortable with facing those risks, but not with this one.

If I have given the impression that I feel anyone else is wrong for wanting to play, I apologize.  If your athletes had parental permission and you are comfortable with it, good for you.  I don't agree, but can't say it is wrong.  As I do believe it is too early to gauge long term effects here, I could be 100% wrong.  But my error won't be a party to a premature death, so I will be able to sleep at night.

tps wrote:

Huck wrote:

tps wrote:i could have guessed 60 million

Maybe I am missing something obvious, but I do not understand what your comment has to do with.  What am I missing?

Are you referring to the number of people who would still vote for him?

Why?

Is it that you could have said you guessed instead of citing some
thing?

i replied to the guy who guessed 60 million.

Happy to stand corrected by a republican hack pollster. 91% of Trump's 74.2 million votes comes to 67.5 million. And Trump would still think he won.