The GQP: Trumpist Death Cult

[The Original Greaser Bob 2785]

On 5/7/2022 at 9:17 PM, Brisketexan said:

Not really. You ban the sale or prescription of any birth control in the state. Sure, people can get it out of state and bring it back, but you just criminalize possession or trafficking that’s a real barrier to most.

They are going to start finding people trying to cross the border with condoms filled with condoms stuffed up their butts.

[tx 3 putt 76295]

You’ll have to go to Mexico to buy condoms 😂😂😂

the only good from all this, R’s are showing their hand waaaay before the midterms. Hopefully it makes a difference. Women need to show up at the polls 

[Mdhorn 5910]

1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:

You’ll have to go to Mexico to buy condoms 😂😂😂

the only good from all this, R’s are showing their hand waaaay before the midterms. Hopefully it makes a difference. Women need to show up at the polls 

That was my immediate thought.  Spring Break and tourism in Mexico just blew up.  Cartels are going to sell contraception.  

[RomaVicta 29769]

4 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

Hopefully it makes a difference. Women need to show up at the polls 

Oh, they will.

[DigglerontheHoof 21044]

3 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

Oh, they will.

Well, they better show up in the midterms, or they just might lose their right to vote.  Not kidding. 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19092]

3 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

Oh, they will.

I see a lot of pasty cunts in this photo.  Disgusting.

[Pig Bellmont 8691]

I’m still shocked by how brazen they are with lying. It’s all bad faith bullshit from them

 

[RomaVicta 29769]

4 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

I see a lot of pasty cunts in this photo.  Disgusting.

Please! Enslave us! It's the moral thing to do!

Now home to make dinner and massage my master's feet so he will love me instead of beating me! Everybody have a blessed day!

Great days for America. Let's create them again. People of color need not apply.

[tx 3 putt 76295]

hmm, was that good coffee ?

[Beau Vine 53978]

2 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

hmm, was that good coffee ?

I'm not ashamed to admit that it perked me up.

[mchookem 16184]

that reminds me, about time for a Mad Men rewatch.

😄

[MC Fresh Breath 4074]

On 5/8/2022 at 10:00 AM, Fudge Nuggets said:

I don’t consider this “home”.  This is just a temporary residence I use to collect pay checks. Once I’m done with that, it’s fuckoffskies for me. Can’t fucking wait. 

I wish those of you 'left behind' the best, but I'm afraid we're just a tad bit beyond that point in the horror movie where you are yelling at the screen for the dummies to just get out of the house.

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33831]

1 minute ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

I wish those of you 'left behind' the best, but I'm afraid we're just a tad bit beyond that point in the horror movie where you are yelling at the screen for the dummies to just get out of the house.

 

oh, so it's just that simple? then why doesn't everyone just pick up and leave when things get hard? why didn't we think of this earlier? 🙄

[MC Fresh Breath 4074]

3 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

oh, so it's just that simple? then why doesn't everyone just pick up and leave when things get hard? why didn't we think of this earlier? 🙄

Oh I get it.  I guess I'm just grateful. It took me nearly 4 years to make it happen. Sorry if it came across as arrogant.

Also, as much as I love it here,  I'm afraid with the eventual nationwide ban that staying within the US isn't moving far enough.

Edited May 9, 2022 by MC Fresh Breath

[Francisco 2.0 32313]

In case anyone is forgetting about gutting education while everything else is in the news:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 9, 2022 by Francisco 2.0

[WhatTheBuck 28703]

On 5/6/2022 at 9:50 PM, Bullneck said:

 

 

I saw Phish at Coventry in 2004. That’s nothing compared to what we had to deal with.

 

[A-Tex Devil 2445]

I just don’t understand the ban on contraception. I get the arguments against abortion and Plan B.  They are wrong and steeped in bad public policy, and ultimately a way for ‘Pubs to ensure single issue voters vote for them to enact rest of shitty platform.  But at core, I understand the moral objection to abortion.   

But on contraception, I’m not seeing the “moral” issue that would drive actually pushing legislation through  

I get that the autistic wing of the GOP can’t handle what they feel is bad law, griswold, remaining out there as a springboard for other things. But a ban on contraception?  Maybe I am naive but I don’t see the upside for the GOP and if anything they are all about upside and winning elections.  There is a school of thought that having Roe as a permanent boogie man was actually preferred to maintain those single issue voters.  Will be curious how that plays out from campaign and turnout perspective.

But those that think Griswold is bad law can go fuck themselves.   It was a necessary decision to navigate flaws in the constitution. 

 

[WhatTheBuck 28703]

14 minutes ago, A-Tex Devil said:

I just don’t understand the ban on contraception. I get the arguments against abortion and Plan B.  They are wrong and steeped in bad public policy, and ultimately a way for ‘Pubs to ensure single issue voters vote for them to enact rest of shitty platform.  But at core, I understand the moral objection to abortion.   

But on contraception, I’m not seeing the “moral” issue that would drive actually pushing legislation through  

I get that the autistic wing of the GOP can’t handle what they feel is bad law, griswold, remaining out there as a springboard for other things. But a ban on contraception?  Maybe I am naive but I don’t see the upside for the GOP and if anything they are all about upside and winning elections.  There is a school of thought that having Roe as a permanent boogie man was actually preferred to maintain those single issue voters.  Will be curious how that plays out from campaign and turnout perspective.

But those that think Griswold is bad law can go fuck themselves.   It was a necessary decision to navigate flaws in the constitution. 

 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19092]

19 minutes ago, A-Tex Devil said:

I just don’t understand the ban on contraception. I get the arguments against abortion and Plan B.  They are wrong and steeped in bad public policy, and ultimately a way for ‘Pubs to ensure single issue voters vote for them to enact rest of shitty platform.  But at core, I understand the moral objection to abortion.   

But on contraception, I’m not seeing the “moral” issue that would drive actually pushing legislation through  

I get that the autistic wing of the GOP can’t handle what they feel is bad law, griswold, remaining out there as a springboard for other things. But a ban on contraception?  Maybe I am naive but I don’t see the upside for the GOP and if anything they are all about upside and winning elections.  There is a school of thought that having Roe as a permanent boogie man was actually preferred to maintain those single issue voters.  Will be curious how that plays out from campaign and turnout perspective.

But those that think Griswold is bad law can go fuck themselves.   It was a necessary decision to navigate flaws in the constitution. 

 

Let's be clear, you think they are wrong, but that is your moral stance.  By stating that as an absolute, you are trying to push your beliefs on others.  

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19092]

11 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

In case anyone is forgetting about gutting education while everything else is in the news:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These people really are ghouls.  They have destroyed the Middle Class through corporate welfare, enriching themselves and their buddies, and want to tell the Middle Class to just fuck off.  What a shitshow.

Edited May 10, 2022 by PenelopeWitherspoon

[TwiceHorn 31240]

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

 

Exactly.  It's the what has been predominantly Catholic notion that any sort of tampering with the reproductive process is tampering with the will of God.  

Ever heard the term "Vatican roulette"?  

Unsurprisingly (except that it took this long), that notion, which had been in decline since the Reformation, is becoming popular among more "sects."

Perhaps one of our religious historians @F250 @Mole can give us some more insight on that.

It is perhaps true that freedom of religion has gone somewhat past anything the founding fathers had conceived of, but this kind of thing would have been right in their wheelhouse because it's right at the intersection of disputes between the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, and that is exactly the kind of thing they were trying to avoid "taking sides on."

Edited May 10, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[gmr548 16481]

 

[formermav43 4599]

1 hour ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Let's be clear, you think they are wrong, but that is your moral stance.  By stating that as an absolute, you are trying to push your beliefs on others.  

I’m pretty sure you misread that post.

[A-Tex Devil 2445]

1 hour ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Let's be clear, you think they are wrong, but that is your moral stance.  By stating that as an absolute, you are trying to push your beliefs on others.  

Not sure it deserves a net, but ok.  “Wrong” isn’t the right word. Early morning airport post.  
 

The point was that I would hope that coming after contraception is a bridge too far for the right from a purely practical perspective.  But I wouldn’t  put it past this SCOTUS to use some new inane state statute to kneecap Griswold.  You can tell Alito wants to and that is my concern and bewilderment with relying solely on a strict reading of the constitution.    

 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19092]

6 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

I’m pretty sure you misread that post.

I did.  My bad.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19092]

4 minutes ago, A-Tex Devil said:

Not sure it deserves a net, but ok.  “Wrong” isn’t the right word. Early morning airport post.  
 

The point was that I would hope that coming after contraception is a bridge too far for the right from a purely practical perspective.  But I wouldn’t  put it past this SCOTUS to use some new inane state statute to kneecap Griswold.  You can tell Alito wants to and that is my concern and bewilderment with relying solely on a strict reading of the constitution.    

 

No worries. I misread.  Early morning before coffee and 5 hours of phone calls post.  

[F250 28674]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Exactly.  It's the what has been predominantly Catholic notion that any sort of tampering with the reproductive process is tampering with the will of God.  

Ever heard the term "Vatican roulette"?  

Unsurprisingly (except that it took this long), that notion, which had been in decline since the Reformation, is becoming popular among more "sects."

Perhaps one of our religious historians @F250 @Mole can give us some more insight on that.

It is perhaps true that freedom of religion has gone somewhat past anything the founding fathers had conceived of, but this kind of thing would have been right in their wheelhouse because it's right at the intersection of disputes between the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, and that is exactly the kind of thing they were trying to avoid "taking sides on."

I believe that the Protestant churches have only differed from the Catholic church on this matter for 90 years or so. The acceptance of birth control was introduced around the time Protestant Christianity was being reshaped by advancement of modernity. It was the Church of England that gave the green light on birth control in the 1930's which still had influence on American Christianity at the time.

The cultural war being fought within the Protestant churches between the "liberals" and "conservatives" as one side embraced modernity and the other rejected it gave rise to a "middle" faction that would evolve into the current strain of modern Evangelicals. Both sides have remained steadfast to their position on this matter. It's only the "middle" group that is starting to change their position and move back towards a position similar to the RCC.

TLDR, It's just the Evangelicals switching positions.

 

[NWBuck 8547]

1 hour ago, F250 said:

TLDR, It's just the Evangelicals switching positions.

 

Which is fascinating when you remember that many Evangelicals weren't involved in the early anti-abortion movement because it was a "Catholic cause"

[Pato del Muerto 52336]

12 minutes ago, NWBuck said:

Which is fascinating when you remember that many Evangelicals weren't involved in the early anti-abortion movement because it was a "Catholic cause"

And that many don’t even consider Catholics to be Christian. 

[wildcat09 29213]

The fun thing is to look at protestant views on abortion in other countries in the past 50 years compared to protestant views on abortion here in the past 50 years. It really helps clarify that for American protestants, abortion replaced segregation as the moral basis for their opposition to liberalism.

[gmr548 16481]

The fun thing is to look at protestant views on abortion in other countries in the past 50 years compared to protestant views on abortion here in the past 50 years. It really helps clarify that for American protestants, abortion replaced segregation as the publicly stated moral basis for their opposition to liberalism.

FIFY

[Mole 4319]

I’m not saying that view is entirely wrong, but it somewhat presumes that Protestants — or more specifically evangelicals — are the same population today as they were x years ago. I suspect that’s not entirely accurate.

For example, the rightward shift of the SBC on abortion gets touted as a shift of opinion to the Catholic view. So we see that as Baptist people changing their opinion and thinking like Catholics. That explains some of it, but there’s also been a bit of “sorting” based on this issue. My anecdotal view is that we’re more likely to align ourselves with different faith groups (or non faith groups) based on the culture war issues than on theological issues.

The more politically liberal wing of the SBC didn’t simply turn politically right; they left and started a new group. Churches these days split over political issues rather than theology. Of course the more politically conservative churches will shift further to the right; the less politically conservative members are finding new churches that align with their political views.

[F250 28674]

7 minutes ago, NWBuck said:

Which is fascinating when you remember that many Evangelicals weren't involved in the early anti-abortion movement because it was a "Catholic cause"

Yeah, a lot of their identity was simply being in opposition to whatever stance the Catholic church held. If the Catholics use 2 ply toilet paper than they will use 1 ply. The current alliance is purely political and certainly not a sign of ecumenism. Neither group thinks highly of the other.

 

[SydneyCarton 47836]

16 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The fun thing is to look at protestant views on abortion in other countries in the past 50 years compared to protestant views on abortion here in the past 50 years. It really helps clarify that for American protestants, abortion replaced segregation as the moral basis for their opposition to liberalism.

I wouldn't say it REPLACED segregatin.

9 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

FIFY

Damn, beat me to it. 

[Pato del Muerto 52336]

10 minutes ago, Mole said:

I’m not saying that view is entirely wrong, but it somewhat presumes that Protestants — or more specifically evangelicals — are the same population today as they were x years ago. I suspect that’s not entirely accurate.

For example, the rightward shift of the SBC on abortion gets touted as a shift of opinion to the Catholic view. So we see that as Baptist people changing their opinion and thinking like Catholics. That explains some of it, but there’s also been a bit of “sorting” based on this issue. My anecdotal view is that we’re more likely to align ourselves with different faith groups (or non faith groups) based on the culture war issues than on theological issues.

The more politically liberal wing of the SBC didn’t simply turn politically right; they left and started a new group. Churches these days split over political issues rather than theology. Of course the more politically conservative churches will shift further to the right; the less politically conservative members are finding new churches that align with their political views.

And yet somehow each group can point to a biblical basis for their opposing beliefs. 

[Genco 3038]

21 minutes ago, Mole said:

I’m not saying that view is entirely wrong, but it somewhat presumes that Protestants — or more specifically evangelicals — are the same population today as they were x years ago. I suspect that’s not entirely accurate.

For example, the rightward shift of the SBC on abortion gets touted as a shift of opinion to the Catholic view. So we see that as Baptist people changing their opinion and thinking like Catholics. That explains some of it, but there’s also been a bit of “sorting” based on this issue. My anecdotal view is that we’re more likely to align ourselves with different faith groups (or non faith groups) based on the culture war issues than on theological issues.

The more politically liberal wing of the SBC didn’t simply turn politically right; they left and started a new group. Churches these days split over political issues rather than theology. Of course the more politically conservative churches will shift further to the right; the less politically conservative members are finding new churches that align with their political views.

Atlantic article published today covering this topic.

[Kyrie Eleison 9312]

4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Exactly.  It's the what has been predominantly Catholic notion that any sort of tampering with the reproductive process is tampering with the will of God.  

Ever heard the term "Vatican roulette"?  

Unsurprisingly (except that it took this long), that notion, which had been in decline since the Reformation, is becoming popular among more "sects."

Perhaps one of our religious historians @F250 @Mole can give us some more insight on that.

It is perhaps true that freedom of religion has gone somewhat past anything the founding fathers had conceived of, but this kind of thing would have been right in their wheelhouse because it's right at the intersection of disputes between the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, and that is exactly the kind of thing they were trying to avoid "taking sides on."

not that hard, bro. ..

in order to have a body politic…an ecclesial polis….you’ve got to have bodies.  

[F250 28674]

31 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

And yet somehow each group can point to a biblical basis for their opposing beliefs. 

Not really. Only those that subscribe to Sola Scriptura are tethered to the necessity of having a biblical basis for a particular position. There are plenty of issues that fall within the realm of "the silence of scripture" and it's only the Sola Scriptura folks that are required to find some kind of biblical justification in those cases.

 

[Bama Chick 28596]

Y’all are working too hard.

It’s about controlling women. Especially women of color.

That’s it.

Also - fucking snowflake ass pussies.

[formermav43 4599]

1 hour ago, Mole said:

My anecdotal view is that we’re more likely to align ourselves with different faith groups (or non faith groups) based on the culture war issues than on theological issues.

The more politically liberal wing of the SBC didn’t simply turn politically right; they left and started a new group. Churches these days split over political issues rather than theology. 

That’s not just anecdotal-I read some research in the last few months that indicates the same thing. I’ll see if I can dig that up later.

[RomaVicta 29769]

1 hour ago, Bama Chick said:

Y’all are working too hard.

It’s about controlling women. Especially women of color.

That’s it.

Also - fucking snowflake ass pussies.
 

Easier than paying China to make twenty million pink fabric stars.

[Pato del Muerto 52336]

1 hour ago, Bama Chick said:

Y’all are working too hard.

It’s about controlling women. Especially women of color.

That’s it.

Also - fucking snowflake ass pussies.
 

Party of small, limited, and/or local government at work.  Behold the glory. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

Anyone ready for the upcoming movie, Fifth Grade Female Felons? And the sequel, Sixth Grade Sister Wives?

 

 

[Sawbonz 27392]

 

 

[bolverk 29394]

9 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

 

 

I know nothing about that race or candidate, but I wouldn't characterize him as being "smoked."

[Pato del Muerto 52336]

Do they require a majority, or is the winner above the R candidate for the general?

Edited May 11, 2022 by Pato del Muerto

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

14 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I know nothing about that race or candidate, but I wouldn't characterize him as being "smoked."

He likely tweeted going off of Omaha/Lincoln precincts. Grand Island is not a hotbed of rational thought. Neither is Hastings for that matter. Although it's prettier since it didn't get leveled by a twister outbreak.

[Sawbonz 27392]

1 hour ago, bolverk said:

I know nothing about that race or candidate, but I wouldn't characterize him as being "smoked."

He was getting smoked at 9 o’clock last night. What, are you gonna count all those votes that came in after that? Most likely election fraud!

[Bama Chick 28596]

[Red Five 40627]

I wonder if it’s ever difficult for any of them to keep a straight face while saying shit like that.