Jump to content

The GQP: Trumpist Death Cult


Hugo Stiglitz

Recommended Posts

On January 13, 2019 at 9:20 AM, Message Board User said:

Cletus now REALLY wants a wall.

 

The thing is, if any other Republican candidate had won the nomination and the presidency, Cletus wouldn't have that opinion. He didn't have it 3-19 years ago. It's a new opinion he suddenly cares deeply about solely because Trump sold his feeble mind on the idea. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, wait.

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/14/rand-paul-neighbor-attack-senator-have-surgery-canada/2568200002/

 

Quote

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, one of the fiercest political critics of socialized medicine, will travel to Canada later this month to get hernia surgery. 

Paul, an ophthalmologist, said the operation is related to an injury in 2017 when his neighbor, Rene Boucher, attacked him while Paul was mowing his lawn. The incident left Kentucky's junior senator with six broken ribs and a bruised lung. 

He is scheduled to have the outpatient operation at the Shouldice Hernia Hospital in Thornhill, Ontario during the week of Jan. 21, according to documents from Paul's civil lawsuit against Boucher filed in Warren Circuit Court. 

Quote

The procedure is estimated to cost anywhere from $5,000 to $8,000, according to court documents. MDsave.com lists a hernia repair costing between $4,000 and $8,000.

Shouldice Hernia Hospital markets itself as "the global leader in non-mesh hernia repair," according to the clinic's website. It is privately administered. 

Kelsey Cooper, a spokeswoman for Paul, said the hospital is privately owned and people come from around the globe for their services. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

Private hospitals??? In a country with nationalized healthcare??? I thought these things were impossible! 

I'm going to assume that Paul has insurance, and as a US Senator and a doctor himself, has the means to find a doctor/get into pretty much any hospital in the United States.  And the procedure doesn't sound like it is that exotic.

 

Having said all that, why Canada?  The optics of this decision are so poor on Paul's part.  Surely to God there's a hospital in Kentucky that can handle this.  Hell, I'd think the Mayo Clinic probably could attend to this issue as well.  But a private place in Canada?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because Rand Paul is an unprincipled piece of shit.  If you plan on waiting for Rand Paul to actually act on the beliefs he claims to have, you'll have a front row seat as the Earth burns up from the exploding sun.

Bernorange will be along shortly to tell us how this means Rand Paul is a true libertarian.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

I'm going to assume that Paul has insurance, and as a US Senator and a doctor himself, has the means to find a doctor/get into pretty much any hospital in the United States.  And the procedure doesn't sound like it is that exotic.

 

Having said all that, why Canada?  The optics of this decision are so poor on Paul's part.  Surely to God there's a hospital in Kentucky that can handle this.  Hell, I'd think the Mayo Clinic probably could attend to this issue as well.  But a private place in Canada?

 

that's where he's meeting the Russians

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

Because?

https://ari.aynrand.org/issues/foreign-policy/self-defense-and-free-trade/Paul-Ryan-Ayn-Rand-and-US-Foreign-Policy

Rand regarded any form of pacifism12(including Ron Paul-esque passivity) as destructive to national defense. And undoubtedly she would have supported a strong military response to the 9/11 attacks (though, as I have argued in my book13 and sketch out below, she would have rejected George W. Bush's conception of the enemy and his entire prosecution of the war).

Rand viewed deterrence as an especially important — and effective — method of defending American freedom. In her view, the power of a morally confident, assertive United States was considerable, though largely unappreciated. For instance, she believed that if the West had truly stood up to the Soviet bloc by withdrawing its moral sanction, ending the flow of aid, and imposing an airtight boycott, the Soviet threat would have disintegrated many years before it actually did, without the need for war.

Perhaps most importantly, Rand argued in favor of genuine free trade — without trade barriers, protective tariffs, or special privileges. In her words: "the opening of the world's trade routes to free international trade and competition among the private citizens of all countries dealing directly with one another." In the 19th century, she argued, free trade liberated the world by "undercutting and wrecking the remnants of feudalism and the statist tyranny of absolute monarchies." Not coincidentally, she observed, this era enjoyed the longest period of general peace in human history (roughly from 1815 to 1914).14 

Taken together, Rand's approach entails a foreign policy based on the morality of "rational self-interest."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

https://ari.aynrand.org/issues/foreign-policy/self-defense-and-free-trade/Paul-Ryan-Ayn-Rand-and-US-Foreign-Policy

Rand regarded any form of pacifism12(including Ron Paul-esque passivity) as destructive to national defense. And undoubtedly she would have supported a strong military response to the 9/11 attacks (though, as I have argued in my book13 and sketch out below, she would have rejected George W. Bush's conception of the enemy and his entire prosecution of the war).

Rand viewed deterrence as an especially important — and effective — method of defending American freedom. In her view, the power of a morally confident, assertive United States was considerable, though largely unappreciated. For instance, she believed that if the West had truly stood up to the Soviet bloc by withdrawing its moral sanction, ending the flow of aid, and imposing an airtight boycott, the Soviet threat would have disintegrated many years before it actually did, without the need for war.

Perhaps most importantly, Rand argued in favor of genuine free trade — without trade barriers, protective tariffs, or special privileges. In her words: "the opening of the world's trade routes to free international trade and competition among the private citizens of all countries dealing directly with one another." In the 19th century, she argued, free trade liberated the world by "undercutting and wrecking the remnants of feudalism and the statist tyranny of absolute monarchies." Not coincidentally, she observed, this era enjoyed the longest period of general peace in human history (roughly from 1815 to 1914).14 

Taken together, Rand's approach entails a foreign policy based on the morality of "rational self-interest."

 

Nationalism and free trade.

That makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Celery Man said:

I mean Ayn Rand sucked on the government teat of socialized healthcare when she was dying of lung cancer after a lifetime of smoking, so there is a precedent.

She was also woefully ignorant of international affairs. Listening to her rattle about the Israel-Palestine conflict leaves one shocked that someone considered to be such an “intellectual heavyweight” would know that little while simultaneously posturing about it. She was the Kent Hovind of her day: a walking, breathing template of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

More on King



e0bb973d8d29429c691f7a8c6cba8af3.jpg

Seriously, good for McCarthy and their leadership.

But if he’s now serving on zero committees, what the fuck does he do with his time?

Just show up for votes?

Meet with Boy Scout troops and 4H winners and beauty queens from Iowa?

Can they impeach or remove a fellow member for conduct unbecoming? Or does he actually have to break a law?
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Womp Womp 

 

This is unintentionally hilarious in that King held up a printout he likely wrote on Microsoft Word to snap a picture with his phone, even having his thumb make an appearance.  

He probably went as far to ask Jeeves how to get this bitching photo of his official statement on the interwebs. 

Edited by Tom
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Ronna.

Farrakhan should be stripped of all his congressional committee assignments.

And do they not teach congressmen how The First Amendment works in orientation?

Plus, I think the Notes app is the preferred method for making a “I’m totally not a racist despite all the racist stuff I say” apology on Twitter.
Not a janky photo of a printout with your thumb in the frame.

He’s a moron, a racist, and a luddite.

Iowans sure know how to pick em.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, true courage was demonstrated in rejecting [checks notes] white supremacy. 

Because they don’t. He didn’t get popped for what he believes. He didn’t get popped for what he said. He got popped for saying it where it could be heard by outsiders. That’s it. He’s in trouble because he dared speak their dark “secret” outside of their closed doors. That’s it.

Ted Cruz was thrilled to have Steve King’s endorsement just two years ago. Steve King was the same guy back then. But he hadn’t slipped up in public.

Scum and cowards. The lot of them. Fuck em all.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, McCarthy actually doing something in stripping King of all congressional leadership is reason for scorn but Mitt Romney and his team write an Op-Ed critical of Trump but when pressed admits he’ll still support all Trump’s policies is worthy of a Profile In Courage?

Please check your notes on how that makes any damn sense.

If King were a Senator, Mitch McConnell wouldn’t have done jack nor shit.

I doubt I agree with McCarthy on one thing but I’m not about to shout down someone who did the right thing just because it took them too long to do it.

McCarthy could have very easily gotten away with not doing a damn thing in this climate. Hell, look how much other ridiculous shit has happened in the last week since King said his racist crap. It would have been washed away by indictments, stupid tweets, shuttered airports, and fast food buffets.

You’ve been preaching about people rewarding Republicans who break from Trumpism. Seems to me McCarthy did just that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, McCarthy actually doing something in stripping King of all congressional leadership is reason for scorn but Mitt Romney and his team write an Op-Ed critical of Trump but when pressed admits he’ll still support all Trump’s policies is worthy of a Profile In Courage?

Please check your notes on how that makes any damn sense.

If King were a Senator, Mitch McConnell wouldn’t have done jack nor shit.

I doubt I agree with McCarthy on one thing but I’m not about to shout down someone who did the right thing just because it took them too long to do it.

McCarthy could have very easily gotten away with not doing a damn thing in this climate. Hell, look how much other ridiculous shit has happened in the last week since King said his racist crap. It would have been washed away by indictments, stupid tweets, shuttered airports, and fast food buffets.

You’ve been preaching about people rewarding Republicans who break from Trumpism. Seems to me McCarthy did just that.

1) I don’t believe him.
2) Too fucking late.
They are related.

There’s only one cure for the poison of the current GOP. Complete and total defeat at every possible turn. They are poison. Puke it out. All of it.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh trust me, iffin I were queen for a day, the GOP would be banned for life.

And McCarthy can’t take away any of Trump’s power. I’d like to believe his actions against King are also a message to the president that he finds his racist garbage unacceptable too.

I’m a lifelong Democrat but I still believe that we need a healthy, non-treasonous, non-racist Republican Party.

That may be impossible at this point but any action from the right that isn’t sucking the cock of Putin or Trump or The KKK is one I’m willing to give a heartfelt “It’s about time”.

The bar is terrifyingly low but it’s all we got at this point.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Because they don’t. He didn’t get popped for what he believes. He didn’t get popped for what he said. He got popped for saying it where it could be heard by outsiders. That’s it. He’s in trouble because he dared speak their dark “secret” outside of their closed doors. That’s it.

Ted Cruz was thrilled to have Steve King’s endorsement just two years ago. Steve King was the same guy back then. But he hadn’t slipped up in public.

Scum and cowards. The lot of them. Fuck em all.

that's just it.   by being a lowlife shitbag who loudly says exactly what he thinks without filter, Trump has given Republicans everywhere permission to say publicly what they have been thinking and saying behind closed doors, and amongst themselves, for decades - the racism, the sexism, the xenophobia, the homophobia, and the hatred of anyone or anything "other" or different than the white, hypocritical, fake christians that they are.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh trust me, iffin I were queen for a day, the GOP would be banned for life.

And McCarthy can’t take away any of Trump’s power. I’d like to believe his actions against King are also a message to the president that he finds his racist garbage unacceptable too.

I’m a lifelong Democrat but I still believe that we need a healthy, non-treasonous, non-racist Republican Party.

That may be impossible at this point but any action from the right that isn’t sucking the cock of Putin or Trump or The KKK is one I’m willing to give a heartfelt “It’s about time”.

The bar is terrifyingly low but it’s all we got at this point.

When you have wicked cancer, you know how you get rid of it? You don’t hope for good cancer. You fucking purge it until it damn near kills you.
There is no fixing the GOP.
There is no healthy, non-treasonous, non-racist GOP.
It can’t be fixed. Only destroyed.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...