Decline of the GOP - XVII

[selmaborntidefan]

Polling would suggest otherwise. In any case, the GOP is still worthless one way or another.

The SAVE Act from the Republicans is no different than the "we want to end gerrymandering" head fake from the Democrats.

- throw out an idea that seems pretty much common sense that you KNOW the other side won't support in the childish form you throw it out there
- use their lack of support to then argue, "the only reason they're opposed to it is" (list sinister reason)

I can tell you right now that if the GOP would actually be in favor of:
- setting an actual deadline to begin this
- using the federal government to print out and PROVIDE a national voting ID card
- make that voting ID card lifelong and never have to be renewed

their idea might make some sense. This doesn't - this is just, "whoo boy, we can really waste everyone's time and cause some trouble because they'll oppose this". And that's exactly the same thing the "no gerrymandering" folks are doing on the left right now.

If they're so opposed to it, why are they doing it in Virginia?
Why are they PLAYING GAMES with it in Virginia - where they first basically asked the court to not interfere in the election, chanted about how they'd evened it all up with Texas via the voters, violated the state constitution, got it overturned, watched SCOTUS RULE 9-0 they were wrong - and now act like the bully who got clobbered in a fight going to a lawyer to file assault charges for a fight the video camera shows he started?

That's why no matter how mad some folks on this board get about the "both sides" argument, AT THE CORE of the argument, it's absolutely true.

Also, I watched some HuffPo mouth breathers several years back - after years of "we don't like gerrymandering" - say, "Well, we have to do it in New York so we can take power back and then end it."

That's some situational ethics of the lowest order.

Note: if anyone still believes that anyone in either party would actually sign off on a redistricting plan that has no gerrymander and PUTS THEM OUT OF THE SEAT - you and I need to play some cards with your life savings on the line.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

The lefties loved Maher when he was a hard-core lefty. Then he started leaning more centrist and they hate him. So now both sides accuse him of being for the other side. It has been fascinating to watch.

But he hasn't REALLY changed, either.

He was always FOR - and still is - "liberal" ideas on everything from abortion to gay rights to the environment to smoking dope to civil rights to almost anything anyone can name. He doesn't even mind the fact he's high taxed.

He drew the line at "I used to be a boy but now I play girl's sports", and the loony section of the Left lost their damn minds. He also drew the line at thinking killing the United CEO was a good thing or that you gain much by being an intolerant jackass towards someone who disagrees despite self-proclaiming one's own tolerance.

Other than he got older, Maher hasn't changed a bit.
He's less confrontational in his delivery and more "I'll listen to what you're saying", but I don't think he's changed a single position on a single hot button issue, either.

The extremists - in both parties - have always marginalized the mainstream in both parties, who are similar to their opponents towards the center.

When Donald Trump fades from the scene, we're not going back to singing Kum Ba Yah.


Because despite the short memories of "oh, we used to just disagree and that was it," that never existed. And human nature means anything Trump did is now okay for "the other side" to go "but what about Trump" when they try their own shenanigans.


Maher didn't change.

You know who did and for the worse?

Rush Limbaugh.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

While it is not wise to end familial or friendship relationships willy-nilly, there does come a point where you have to just say, "I don't know what to say to you anymore, but maybe we just need to stop talking about politics".

As a general rule of thumb, I don't talk about politics (other than here), which somehow "outs" me as a right-winger, which is hilarious. The reason I don't is simple: nobody gives a real damn about the truth when they're talking politics. The number of people who will flat out MAKE STUFF UP or take something small and act like it was the biggest thing ever is legion.

I don't think I'm stupid enough or young enough any longer to be an idealist, but watching the willingness of people to flat out lie about things simply to hold to their viewpoint is so predictable now that I have no reason to waste my time TALKING (I can at least lay out a case in writing, folks can agree or not).

Same with religion. I graduated from the seminary 13 years ago last week. If you had told me given my discussions before going that I would never again discuss religion ever with anyone for the rest of my life, I would never have believed it, but it's true. Well, it's 99% true, a few things have come up but I don't jump at them like I would have 20 years ago.

The reason I don't - now - is multifold but can be chalked up to two main things:

1) most folks don't want to discuss, they want to fight and feel better about themselves; if I ever calmly just say "that's it" in a discussion, these prideful idiots walk away convinced they've outdebated a seminary grad

2) do idiots REALLY think nobody has ever addressed their questions by now?

Does anyone who wants to go the "the God of the OT is different than the one in the NT" route actually think nobody in human history wrote on that subject? Or that they could not find some answers, links, and "for further study" on net pages?

And that's for any subject.

Does an Arminian who thinks a Calvinist who believes in limited atonement never accounted for 1 John 2:1-2? They may not agree with it, fine. But it's arrogance of the highest order to say "nobody ever answered my question," because they did.


Anyway, I've meandered, but you expected no different from me, I know.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I guess it all depends on your temperament - I have friends and family that are MAGA and friends and family that are pretty liberal. If politics comes up with those of either side, I just stay out of it. I cannot remember the last time I was around a political argument in person, largely because I avoid people who cannot not talk politics. Thankfully, those people are few and far between IRL.

For some people, it's their religion, so I just smile and shrug...

My favorite was my ex-FIL having all these solutions to problems.

Do you seriously think that you, sitting here in NE Mississippi with a GED, thought of some sort of solution to a problem that not one expert on any of the staffs of any of the Congresscritters ever imagined?


===========================

Let me recommend a book to ANYONE here - "The Electoral College" by Thomas E. Weaver, written in 2023. He handles EVERY POINT you will hear made now both for and against it while covering the details of disputed elections over the EC vote count from the first to the last (2016). He also ends forever the myth that "the Electoral College was about slavery," which was debunked by liberal historian Sean Wilentz, who had held the opposing view prior to doing more research - and actually said the words "I was wrong." He still favors popular vote selection of the President, but he notes that the even though several slaveholding Virginians wound up President in the early years, the EC would not have really helped them to gain or maintain power.

==========================


My further point is that there's not one single argument either for or against the EC that is in any way NEW, no matter how often folks might think they've suddenly discovered plutonium by accident.

 

[92tide]

Hey dumb GOP congressman, just get a second job.

That’s what MAGA idiots tell people who say minimum wage is not enough to live on.

The hypocrisy from the GOP. 174k isn’t enough for them but minimum wage should be for the rest of us. How these people continue to say this crap with a straight face is so telling, they don’t care about anyone but themselves.

maybe they should go work in the trades

 

[Its On A Slab]

As a general rule of thumb, I don't talk about politics (other than here), which somehow "outs" me as a right-winger, which is hilarious. The reason I don't is simple: nobody gives a real damn about the truth when they're talking politics. The number of people who will flat out MAKE STUFF UP or take something small and act like it was the biggest thing ever is legion.

I don't think I'm stupid enough or young enough any longer to be an idealist, but watching the willingness of people to flat out lie about things simply to hold to their viewpoint is so predictable now that I have no reason to waste my time TALKING (I can at least lay out a case in writing, folks can agree or not).

Same with religion. I graduated from the seminary 13 years ago last week. If you had told me given my discussions before going that I would never again discuss religion ever with anyone for the rest of my life, I would never have believed it, but it's true. Well, it's 99% true, a few things have come up but I don't jump at them like I would have 20 years ago.

The reason I don't - now - is multifold but can be chalked up to two main things:

1) most folks don't want to discuss, they want to fight and feel better about themselves; if I ever calmly just say "that's it" in a discussion, these prideful idiots walk away convinced they've outdebated a seminary grad

2) do idiots REALLY think nobody has ever addressed their questions by now?

Does anyone who wants to go the "the God of the OT is different than the one in the NT" route actually think nobody in human history wrote on that subject? Or that they could not find some answers, links, and "for further study" on net pages?

And that's for any subject.

Does an Arminian who thinks a Calvinist who believes in limited atonement never accounted for 1 John 2:1-2? They may not agree with it, fine. But it's arrogance of the highest order to say "nobody ever answered my question," because they did.


Anyway, I've meandered, but you expected no different from me, I know.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that those people think that , once you say "I'm tired of this", they veiw it as a win. That their argument won the day - rather than you've just gotten sick and tired of the intransigent and ignorant banter.

My younger MAGA brother SPAMs our brother's text group with all sorts of lies and mischaracterizations from such august media sources as NewsMax and Brietbart. The minute you respond with facts, he gets angry and continues to spout falsehoods. It's a zero-sum game with those people. You can't find common ground with them.

 

[arthurdawg]

The SAVE Act from the Republicans is no different than the "we want to end gerrymandering" head fake from the Democrats.

- throw out an idea that seems pretty much common sense that you KNOW the other side won't support in the childish form you throw it out there
- use their lack of support to then argue, "the only reason they're opposed to it is" (list sinister reason)

I can tell you right now that if the GOP would actually be in favor of:
- setting an actual deadline to begin this
- using the federal government to print out and PROVIDE a national voting ID card
- make that voting ID card lifelong and never have to be renewed

their idea might make some sense. This doesn't - this is just, "whoo boy, we can really waste everyone's time and cause some trouble because they'll oppose this". And that's exactly the same thing the "no gerrymandering" folks are doing on the left right now.

Exactly. Most people are fine with voter ID and security, but don't try to use as a backdoor to at least temporarily disenfranchise millions of voters who you think support the other side. Put out the complete program and show that nobody will be refused on spurious grounds.

Of course... If there was actually even the smallest evidence of voter fraud... That would probably make more sense and garner support. But instead we get repeated frantic calls about how it is happening and every investigation (if it even happens) finds nothing. Because voting is pretty darned secure.

Heck... Next people will repeat the lie that an antiparasitic medication cures cancer based upon zero evidence and demand I give it to them! Hahaha! That would be both funny and tragic!

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that those people think that , once you say "I'm tired of this", they veiw it as a win. That their argument won the day - rather than you've just gotten sick and tired of the intransigent and ignorant banter.

My younger MAGA brother SPAMs our brother's text group with all sorts of lies and mischaracterizations from such august media sources as NewsMax and Brietbart. The minute you respond with facts, he gets angry and continues to spout falsehoods. It's a zero-sum game with those people. You can't find common ground with them.

Here’s the difference: the Reaganites, the Goldwater folks DID have a central core of belief. You could disagree with it, it might even be contrary to reality in some cases, but it was consistent.

MAGA, by contrast, is Jim Jones/Osama Bin Laden levels of devotion to the worst combination of Teddy Kennedy, LBJ*, and John Gotti ever created. Watch them - 8 hours after posting one thing in support of Mad Racist, they’ll turn right around when he contradicts what he’s been saying and when you quote them against themselves, they revert to “47-dimensional chess” and “fake news.”




* (I’ve consumed seven large books on the 1968 Election for my write up on the “Polls” thread, and what’s amazing is how much LBJ sounds like Trump on so many things. His only saving grace that makes him different aside from his poor upbringing is he had some political skills and while he was a bully, he could also persuade folks why something was a good idea. On Vietnam, he turns around over and over and contradicts Humphrey every time he opens his mouth on the subject and appears until the very end to be rooting for Nixon to succeed him).

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Proving the point, l got blocked on Twitter in mere seconds by an idiot who (once again) passed off this ahistorical nonsense:

 

[Its On A Slab]

Proving the point, l got blocked on Twitter in mere seconds by an idiot who (once again) passed off this ahistorical nonsense:

View attachment 57313

DEI, Hell. Bear knew that if he was going to remain competitive, his roster was going to have to be with the best players. There was no coincidence that players from HBCUs were dominating in the NFL from the late 1950s thru the 1970s. White-boy football was not going to compete nationally.

 

[DzynKingRTR]

Proving the point, l got blocked on Twitter in mere seconds by an idiot who (once again) passed off this ahistorical nonsense:

View attachment 57313

Didn't Bryant try to get black players at Kentucky 20 years before Sam Cunningham? He was denied by the president of Kentucky and the AD named Adolf.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

Didn't Bryant try to get black players at Kentucky 20 years before Sam Cunningham? He was denied by the president of Kentucky and the AD named Adolf.

He wanted to do it immediately upon his return but President Rose said Alabama wasn't ready for it yet. Sadly, he was probably right. We could have had even more NCs. Today, I pulled up behind a car with a UA vanity tag. It read "YEP! 18" ...

 

[selmaborntidefan]

DEI, Hell. Bear knew that if he was going to remain competitive, his roster was going to have to be with the best players. There was no coincidence that players from HBCUs were dominating in the NFL from the late 1950s thru the 1970s. White-boy football was not going to compete nationally.

Yeah but the stupid thing is he repeats that nonsense about that game being his incentive to recruit blacks. He already had Wilbur Jackson signed before that game was scheduled. And we actually had a few black players try out for us in spring 1967, but they weren’t much good (and yes, it was our fault).

And he had told Look magazine in 1965 that the day of integrated Alabama football was coming.

Thank God he didn’t go the Ole Miss route on that. They’re still paying for it.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Didn't Bryant try to get black players at Kentucky 20 years before Sam Cunningham? He was denied by the president of Kentucky and the AD named Adolf.

And you know what’s really stupid?

If he had stayed at Kentucky, the new governor (in 1955) was the same guy who integrated baseball as commissioner, Happy Chandler.

 

[Huckleberry]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2056471000267862501

Thomas Massie: "I vote with Republicans 91% of the time. And the 9% I don't, they're taking up for pedophiles, starting another war, or bankrupting our country."

 

[Its On A Slab]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2056471000267862501

Thomas Massie: "I vote with Republicans 91% of the time. And the 9% I don't, they're taking up for pedophiles, starting another war, or bankrupting our country."

I am loving the MAGA meltdown. MTG and Lauren Boebert are off the reservation.

I despise them all, but I'm loving the chickens come home to roost.

 

[Crimson1967]

The 1970 team was integrated but freshmen couldn’t play varsity ball at the time.

Would have been nice if he had pushed for integration earlier but that wasn’t going to happen. He did allow Newton (who he hired on Adolf’s suggestion) to recruit black basketball players.

Earle, do you know if Bryant and George Wallace were on friendly terms?

 

[arthurdawg]

Former Alabama president reflects George Wallace's 'scripted' Stand in the Schoolhouse Door

The image of Alabama Governor George Wallace standing in front of Foster Auditorium protesting the desegregation of the University of Alabama has lingered in the national consciousness for more than 50 years.

www.al.com

Interesting article with Dr. Mathews, who was the president during the integration. Relative of mine, although I've only met him once many years ago.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

The 1970 team was integrated but freshmen couldn’t play varsity ball at the time.

Would have been nice if he had pushed for integration earlier but that wasn’t going to happen. He did allow Newton (who he hired on Adolf’s suggestion) to recruit black basketball players.

Earle, do you know if Bryant and George Wallace were on friendly terms?

This is from Bryant’s compiled autobiography of articles by SI’s John Underwood:

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I am loving the MAGA meltdown. MTG and Lauren Boebert are off the reservation.

I despise them all, but I'm loving the chickens come home to roost.

They deserve it.

As a reminder, though, not only have the Democrats patented blowing it, but the excuse from the great “my red hat is unwashed” will be “stolen elections!”