The Republican Party is going to be REALLY interesting to watch for a while

[Mac1958]

Trump-McConnell rift threatens GOP's Senate hopes

Republicans need to pick up only one seat in next year's midterms to win back the majority, but the GOP could be mired in a protracted civil war over the former president's role in the party.

www.politico.com

It's hard to imagine things settling down in the GQP, and that was before Trump's recent wild tantrum directed at Mitch McConnell -- which (no one seems to be pointing out) had pretty much nothing to do with McConnell's speech after the trial.

So, what will 2022 look like? Will we see rough inter-party primaries from coast to coast, even where long-standing Republican congressmen are established -- one more traditional Republican, and one Trump-approved Qandidate? How many of those Trump qandidates will win? And if so, how will they do in their general elections?

Further, do we know yet what 2024 will look like? What if the Trump-approved candidates either win or get wiped out? Will that change the dynamic for the party in 2024?

Never a dull moment. All we can do is watch and guess. What do you think may happen?

Rid yourself of that extreme case of TDS you’re harboring....it’s time.
You really should be keeping a better eye on the Almost Dead dude in the Oval Office now...we’re four weeks in and you still can’t tell us what action he’s taken to improve America for Americans. I gotta hand it to him though....he’s absolutely killing it for Mexico’s people at the expense of Americans.

Nope. Trumpism is just too historic and too fascinating. You people represent a little, wet, wormy thing, wiggling around in my mental Petri dish.

Poke, observe, poke, observe. Flush.

If you don't like that, too bad.

 

[Claudette]

I'd also bet the Capital Police and our glorious leaders would disagree as well.

Prime example. The DC protest WAS a peaceful protest until Trump turned the cops loose on them.

Another idiot who see's racists under every bush.

Get out from under that bush

Well from what I saw the Capital police opened the gates and doors and let them all in.

Hell it was going on when Trump was giving his speech.

When in doubt, scream racist. That's all you Dems ever do. You wouldn't know a real racist if one spit in your face.

 

[Lesh]

Well from what I saw the Capital police opened the gates and doors and let them all in.

Ohhh...you're talking about the Trump attack on the CAPITOL...

BLM and Antifa had ZERO to do with that but that IS the latest QAnon conspiracy theory (that you don't pay attention to ...cough cough)

 

[Lesh]

When in doubt, scream racist.

Hey stupid..YOU brought up race. Go back and look ya stupid racist bitch

You wouldn't know a real racist if one spit in your face.

Spit in my face and you'll be laying on your back looking at the clouds wondering what happened

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

"Rational Anericans know the election was.stolen."

They do?
How was it stolen? Where? Which states? Which precincts?
How do you know?

I don't mean to put the poster on the spot, however, over 60 courts considered suits, motions, appeals, etc. from a team of Don Trump's 'elite strike force' of lawyers.
60+ courts rejected their arguments for a whole variety of reasons, including untruthfulness.
And empaneled in those 60+ courts were many conservative judges voted in by Republicans, or appointed by Republicans, including appointed by Don Trump himself.

The man appointed by Don Trump himself to oversee the election security, Chris Krebs, said it was the most secure election in U.S. history.

The man appointed by Don Trump himself to lead the Department of Justice, Bill Barr, directed his AG's throughout the U.S. to look into election fraud. And Barr famously said......no fraud that would change the results of any election.

And yet, we still see these crackpot ninnys with some barstool theory on a "stolen election".

I say....'bring it'!

If one knows it was stolen then march down to the local DA office, or Sherriff's office, or FBI office.......and show the proof. Register a complaint.

To not bring to authorities proof of election fraud one knows in their heart is true......well then, I say those folks who don't do that are un-American. Traitors. Chickens. Bluffers, blowhards, buffoons, fools, or small-bore liars.

They think they know the election was stolen yet don't do anything about it except whine and come on message boards and say stuff they are too afraid, or too incompetent or too unintelligent ---- to put their money where their mouth is.

Other than that, I'm pretty neutral on it all.

I'll give you Pennsylvania as one example.
The PA constitution states only the legislature shall change election law.
The election laws were changed by the election board, all unelected officials.
They were aloud to break the law. End of story.
No ask yourself why in PA did those officials also insist on changing the law that states all mail in ballots must have a clear identifiable post mark and date?
They changed it to no clear postmark or date.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Well from what I saw the Capital police opened the gates and doors and let them all in.

Ohhh...you're talking about the Trump attack on the CAPITOL...

BLM and Antifa had ZERO to do with that but that IS the latest QAnon conspiracy theory (that you don't pay attention to ...cough cough)

Q....BOO!

 

[Mac1958]

Unless Republican & Democrats join together to take the money out of politics' the money will continue to not benefit the average American who keep the whole system running.

Yeah. It distorts pretty much everything it touches. The electorate doesn't seem to care about that.

 

[Chillicothe]

Well from what I saw the Capital police opened the gates and doors and let them all in.

Ah, poster Claudette, you do know that is well plowed ground. No?
But, if you've got pictures or the videos illustrating the police letting in all the insurrectionists......well, show 'em to us. Link us to 'em. Show us that you've got game. That you know what you are talking about.

I say that not to put you on the spot, but rather, to give you an opportunity to demonstrate your knowledge of events, your ability to research, and of course......your judgement.

Batter up, Claudette.
.............................................................................
And let's go another inning, Claudette. OK?

You stated this:

BLM is a Domestic Terrorist organization ........"
"......were you there when they were involved in the Capital Building riot??

I have not seen any designation that they are a terrorist organization. Can you show us your source? Link us to it? It will help us gauge your seriousness and your insight. Thanks.
..............................................

And then you suggest that BLM was "involved in the Capitol Building riot."

How so?
What do you know about that?
Do you know something that others....to date.....have not seen or verified?

In fact, poster Claudette, if you have followed any one of several threads on this venue, or more importantly, read a newspaper....... you'll observe that NO BLM activists have been reported or arrested for the Capitol Insurrection on January 6th.

So, that obviously stirs our curiosity on what you know that others don't.
And HOW do you know it?

So, to use a poker analogy: I call your hand.
Show.
Or go.

Batter up, Claudette.

 

[Claudette]

Well from what I saw the Capital police opened the gates and doors and let them all in.

Ah, poster Claudette, you do know that is well plowed ground. No?
But, if you've got pictures or the videos illustrating the police letting in all the insurrectionists......well, show 'em to us. Link us to 'em. Show us that you've got game. That you know what you are talking about.

I say that not to put you on the spot, but rather, to give you an opportunity to demonstrate your knowledge of events, your ability to research, and of course......your judgement.

Batter up, Claudette.
.............................................................................
And let's go another inning, Claudette. OK?

You stated this:

BLM is a Domestic Terrorist organization ........"
"......were you there when they were involved in the Capital Building riot??

I have not seen any designation that they are a terrorist organization. Can you show us your source? Link us to it? It will help us gauge your seriousness and your insight. Thanks.
..............................................

And then you suggest that BLM was "involved in the Capitol Building riot."

How so?
What do you know about that?
Do you know something that others....to date.....have not seen or verified?

In fact, poster Claudette, if you have followed any one of several threads on this venue, or more importantly, read a newspaper....... you'll observe that NO BLM activists have been reported or arrested for the Capitol Insurrection on January 6th.

So, that obviously stirs our curiosity on what you know that others don't.
And HOW do you know it?

So, to use a poker analogy: I call your hand.
Show.
Or go.

Batter up, Claudette.

Hey, the pictures of those with cameras were on this board last week. Cameras, not phones. Oh an plenty of posts where Capital Police opened gates and showed them in. Look it up.

 

[Chillicothe]

"I'll give you Pennsylvania as one example.
The PA constitution states only the legislature shall change election law.
The election laws were changed by the election board, all unelected officials.
They were aloud to break the law. End of story."

"End of story"?
Ummm, maybe not.

While I applaud your passion and what seems to be a sincere belief, I nonetheless, would suggest you do a little fact checking before betting your farm on this allegation of yours.

Try Politifacts, for one. Maybe Snopes, though I didn't check them myself.

Still, Politifacts is considered a gold-standard for the mini-industry of 'fact checking'. Here is some of what they had to say about Pennsylvania's mail-in votes. (BTW, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed with 'em and not Hawley. Or with Rudy G. Or with you. Just sayin'. )

Josh Hawley: “And, yet, last year, Pennsylvania elected officials passed a whole new law that allows universal mail-in balloting, and did it irregardless of what the Pennsylvania Constitution said."

Hawley’s central argument is that a new state law about voting by mail — passed not "last year" but in the fall of 2019 — conflicts with the state’s constitution. The courts have not backed up his argument, and he omits the full story about the new law. The state constitution doesn’t have an explicit ban on mail-in voting, and the law permitting mail-in voting passed with strong Republican support.

Spokespersons for Hawley did not respond to our questions."

PolitiFact - Fact-checking Hawley’s claim about Pennsylvania’s election law

Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri led the Senate charge against the electoral college certification of Joe Biden’s victory. M

www.politifact.com

...............................................................................................

I don't mean to dunk over you, poster 'laugh'.....but I would suggest you work a little harder, run a bit faster, and find another 'end of story'.

Best2u, C.

 

[Chillicothe]

Look it up

This gets circular, eh?
Look, Claudette, we've had this little Dutch Uncle discussion before: If you assert it. You prove it. It is not our job to prove you right. If you ARE right......you should be able to show it, prove it.

You are still at bat.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Well from what I saw the Capital police opened the gates and doors and let them all in.

Ah, poster Claudette, you do know that is well plowed ground. No?
But, if you've got pictures or the videos illustrating the police letting in all the insurrectionists......well, show 'em to us. Link us to 'em. Show us that you've got game. That you know what you are talking about.

I say that not to put you on the spot, but rather, to give you an opportunity to demonstrate your knowledge of events, your ability to research, and of course......your judgement.

Batter up, Claudette.
.............................................................................
And let's go another inning, Claudette. OK?

You stated this:

BLM is a Domestic Terrorist organization ........"
"......were you there when they were involved in the Capital Building riot??

I have not seen any designation that they are a terrorist organization. Can you show us your source? Link us to it? It will help us gauge your seriousness and your insight. Thanks.
..............................................

And then you suggest that BLM was "involved in the Capitol Building riot."

How so?
What do you know about that?
Do you know something that others....to date.....have not seen or verified?

In fact, poster Claudette, if you have followed any one of several threads on this venue, or more importantly, read a newspaper....... you'll observe that NO BLM activists have been reported or arrested for the Capitol Insurrection on January 6th.

So, that obviously stirs our curiosity on what you know that others don't.
And HOW do you know it?

So, to use a poker analogy: I call your hand.
Show.
Or go.

Batter up, Claudette.

LefTard Logic:

Insurrectionists-

Not Insurrectionists-

Please stop wondering why NOBODY decent and even half sane takes you whack-jobs seriously.

 

[bripat9643]

Trump-McConnell rift threatens GOP's Senate hopes

Republicans need to pick up only one seat in next year's midterms to win back the majority, but the GOP could be mired in a protracted civil war over the former president's role in the party.

www.politico.com

It's hard to imagine things settling down in the GQP, and that was before Trump's recent wild tantrum directed at Mitch McConnell -- which (no one seems to be pointing out) had pretty much nothing to do with McConnell's speech after the trial.

So, what will 2022 look like? Will we see rough inter-party primaries from coast to coast, even where long-standing Republican congressmen are established -- one more traditional Republican, and one Trump-approved Qandidate? How many of those Trump qandidates will win? And if so, how will they do in their general elections?

Further, do we know yet what 2024 will look like? What if the Trump-approved candidates either win or get wiped out? Will that change the dynamic for the party in 2024?

Never a dull moment. All we can do is watch and guess. What do you think may happen?

We have to overlook short term goals for the sake of the long term health of the party. We can't accomplish our goals when we are infested by these backstabbing RINOs. They have to excised from the party.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

It's probably not a good thing in some way but I'm still searching for what that could be.

I don't the history of how well candidates perform in generals after rough primaries, but I'd be surprised if we didn't see a lot of it in 2022. Based on history, obviously, the GQP should be looking at some gains...

Eyeing 2022 gains, GOP faces uncertain future with Trump’s exit - Roll Call

Republicans expect to make gains in 2022 because the party out of power usually does. But Donald Trump remains a wildcard in that calculation.

www.rollcall.com

My crystal ball has been on the fritz since 2016. The real question is which faction is going to get the support of the oligarchs? In the long run the big money will always win out in republican politics.

True, exactly the same with the D Party, but you don’t know it.

Oh he knows it. He just won't admit it. Both parties suck yet he only picks on the Reps.

Read post #17. Instead of bitching about democrats why don't you tell us which right wing faction you are going to join and why they should rule all republicans.

LOL Since I don't belong to either party your post is dumb. No one should rule the Reps. Someone should lead them.

As for your Dem's, their current leader is bat shit crazy along with the whore VP.

I'd say the Dems have more problems then the Reps will ever have.

You belong to the POT/POQ/GOP

Party of Trump
Party of QAnon
Republican Party

Nope.

I support Trump.

Don't give a rats ass about QAnon.

And I'm an Independent.

Your post is funny though.

You Support Jack Ass Biden.

You love Antifa and BLM

And your a Dem idiot.

You sure are a winner. LMAO

If you support tRump you support Q'anon.

And, like many other tRumplings who claim to be, you're about as independent as my thumb.

Q.........BOO!

 

[Claudette]

Look it up

This gets circular, eh?
Look, Claudette, we've had this little Dutch Uncle discussion before: If you assert it. You prove it. It is not our job to prove you right. If you ARE right......you should be able to show it, prove it.

You are still at bat.

Nope. I bunted. Its all over this board. Look it up yourself. If you aren't to lazy that is.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

"I'll give you Pennsylvania as one example.
The PA constitution states only the legislature shall change election law.
The election laws were changed by the election board, all unelected officials.
They were aloud to break the law. End of story."

"End of story"?
Ummm, maybe not.

While I applaud your passion and what seems to be a sincere belief, I nonetheless, would suggest you do a little fact checking before betting your farm on this allegation of yours.

Try Politifacts, for one. Maybe Snopes, though I didn't check them myself.

Still, Politifacts is considered a gold-standard for the mini-industry of 'fact checking'. Here is some of what they had to say about Pennsylvania's mail-in votes. (BTW, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed with 'em and not Hawley. Or with Rudy G. Or with you. Just sayin'. )

Josh Hawley: “And, yet, last year, Pennsylvania elected officials passed a whole new law that allows universal mail-in balloting, and did it irregardless of what the Pennsylvania Constitution said."

Hawley’s central argument is that a new state law about voting by mail — passed not "last year" but in the fall of 2019 — conflicts with the state’s constitution. The courts have not backed up his argument, and he omits the full story about the new law. The state constitution doesn’t have an explicit ban on mail-in voting, and the law permitting mail-in voting passed with strong Republican support.

Spokespersons for Hawley did not respond to our questions."

PolitiFact - Fact-checking Hawley’s claim about Pennsylvania’s election law

Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri led the Senate charge against the electoral college certification of Joe Biden’s victory. M

www.politifact.com

...............................................................................................

I don't mean to dunk over you, poster 'laugh'.....but I would suggest you work a little harder, run a bit faster, and find another 'end of story'.

Best2u, C.

Politifact...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAHAHAHA

I do mean to laugh at you. I live in Pennsylvania. I know what happened.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's probably not a good thing in some way but I'm still searching for what that could be.

I don't the history of how well candidates perform in generals after rough primaries, but I'd be surprised if we didn't see a lot of it in 2022. Based on history, obviously, the GQP should be looking at some gains...

Eyeing 2022 gains, GOP faces uncertain future with Trump’s exit - Roll Call

Republicans expect to make gains in 2022 because the party out of power usually does. But Donald Trump remains a wildcard in that calculation.

www.rollcall.com

My crystal ball has been on the fritz since 2016. The real question is which faction is going to get the support of the oligarchs? In the long run the big money will always win out in republican politics.

True, exactly the same with the D Party, but you don’t know it.

Oh he knows it. He just won't admit it. Both parties suck yet he only picks on the Reps.

Childish.

 

[Chillicothe]

I bunted. Its all over this board. Look it up yourself.

Ah, poster Claudette, in my opinion, it makes you look bad. To use as the validation of your posted opinions something you read on an internet message board from contributors posting anonymously under fake names.
That's not reputation enhancing. Trust me.

It makes you look like your bluff got called.
You are out of aces.
The cowgirl is all hat, no cows.

Seriously, I'm merely trying to help you; offer you advice on how to present your avatar as an entity to take serious, one with a degree of gravitas.

But, I think you've played your string out on this topic. Your die cast.
So be it.

In the meantime, good luck to you.

 

[easyt65]

why watch normal political in-fighting when you can watch the Socialist Circus of Joe & the Democrats destroying America, Joe mentally melting down...by like declaring the virus vaccine did not exist until he took office despite getting vaccines live on tv on 21 Dec 2020 and again early in Jan 21 before the inauguration...etc

 

[Chillicothe]

I do mean to laugh at you. I live in Pennsylvania. I know what happened.

OK, cool.
We have a resident expert on Pennsylvania election law and procedures.
That's good, you can be more authoritative than what we are generally offered on message boards.

So, given your unique local perspective, you can then tell us the following paragraph from Politifact is correct? or incorrect?

Meaning -----

• The Pennsylvania courts did---or did not? ....back up Hawley's argument?
• That the state's constitution doesn't.....or does.......explicitly ban mail-in voting?
• And that the law permitting mail-in voting did....or did not....pass with 'strong Republican support'?
  
  Appreciate your assistance in helping us vet that paragraph.
  Danke'.

Politifact: "The courts have not backed up his argument......The state constitution doesn’t have an explicit ban on mail-in voting, and the law permitting mail-in voting passed with strong Republican support."