impeachment inquiry hearings thread

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

True

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

 

[Biff Tannen 45757]

What I can't wait for is when Biden doesn't get the nomination and suddenly they don't care about him anymore.  Suddenly Warren or whomever will be "under investigation".  It's just such blatant bullshit.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

I don't think Trump sees Warren as any kind of a threat. She is a woman, first of all, and therefore unqualified. He already has his nickname for her and he knows, along with Tucker, that they can play up the whole feminazi ballbuster socialist schtick that plays well to people who won't vote for any woman regardless of whether it's Hillary or not.

I would be on board with Warren/Booker or Booker/Warren because both are pretty bright and I think we need some brains in the WH for a change.

Whatever Rudy drug deal is cooking up over there though is not good. If they have to manufacture evidence, they will. These guys he's dealing with are serious and the money is serious and I hope someone is paying attention behind the scenes. I frankly don't care if Rudy gets dusted, he is meddling as an unregistered foreign agent and ought to be behind bars.

[triplehorn 2664]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

True

c'mon man.  No one is clinging to that, never were.

House has only started multiple months of impeachment related moves.  Senate and all Congressional GOP are now coming to grips that they are caught in a Promethean nightmare having to absurdly lie and deny reality on an unending daily basis.  It doesn't matter that this batch of GOP actors is uniquely skilled at corrupt deception.  Even the most artful dodgers need breaks and pivots.  That's not going to be possible.  Look at what Devin has been puvlicly reduced to in the last 48 hours.  More to follow.

[Celery Man 21022]

What happens when the Supreme Court rules, Trump says “no”, and not a single republican does a thing?

[David Dennison 18994]

2 hours ago, Chrispy_ said:

I’m not telling anyone to do anything. Fundamentally, I agree with you, it’s just that it isn’t realistic. I understand why people disengage from politics, hell I have myself lately. Politics move terribly slow, are very toxic, and there’s a whole lot of losing and/or not getting what you want. Even when Republicans win, the excitement is very short lived because it’s on to the next battle. It can be very draining. 
 

The cynical part of me understands why the the Democrats played it this way; so as to file it in the “at least we tried” folder and people can move on fairly quickly. 

The investigations will also continue after impeachment. 

John Bolton's testimony will be must see TV.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

14 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

What happens when the Supreme Court rules, Trump says “no”, and not a single republican does a thing?

We take to the streets prior to the election fulfilling AG Barr's threat about protestors and police protection and it gives keyboard warriors angina?

[J.R. Juniors Junior Jr. 1084]

SIAP:

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

2 hours ago, Chrispy_ said:

Politics move terribly slow, are very toxic...

I don't think they have to be that way, but it's a terrible shame that politics has regressed to the point that compromise and debate are dirty words.

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The investigations will also continue after impeachment. 

John Bolton's testimony will be must see TV.

The first sentence I believe to be true, but I have serious doubts about JB ever sitting in a chair in front of the committee.

[David Dennison 18994]

1 minute ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I don't think they have to be that way, but it's a terrible shame that politics has regressed to the point that compromise and debate are dirty words.

The first sentence I believe to be true, but I have serious doubts about JB ever sitting in a chair in front of the committee.

If a court upholds the Kupperman subpoena, I would expect to see Bolton testify before the House Intelligence Committee.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong and I can't say I would mind being wrong at all at all. Bolton would get a lot of eyeballs.

[Brisketexan 105483]

30 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

What happens when the Supreme Court rules, Trump says “no”, and not a single republican does a thing?

What I've been saying for a while now happens:

We call it a day for the Republic*, and move on to whatever's next.  And whatever's next....won't be pretty, and won't last long.

* Spoiler: the Republic has been dead for a while now, they're just keeping it on the machines so they can claim it's still alive.  The GOP's conspiracy to kill it finally succeeded.

[David Dennison 18994]

1 minute ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong and I can't say I would mind being wrong at all at all. Bolton would get a lot of eyeballs.

Sadly, you might be right.

There is nothing preventing John Bolton from testifying right now. Nothing can stop him from testifying voluntarily. He's just being a prick.

[SmokeyTheBear 5569]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

What I've been saying for a while now happens:

We call it a day for the Republic*, and move on to whatever's next.  And whatever's next....won't be pretty, and won't last long.

* Spoiler: the Republic has been dead for a while now, they're just keeping it on the machines so they can claim it's still alive.  The GOP's conspiracy to kill it finally succeeded.

Flood the swamp?

[triplehorn 2664]

for those keeping tabs - 

3 days ago:

today, as expected:

Mentioned on last page, it's now a total of 3 Trump finance cases that could be considered by SCOTUS for cert at its conference I understand is scheduled for next Friday 12/13.  It's not likely, but conceivable, SCOTUS could deny cert on all 3 cases thereby upholding the lower courts' rulings.  That would mean the timeline for said tax returns and Deutsche Bank/Trump financials just hit warp speed to land with the relevant House committees' ongoing impeachment inquiries.  If SCOTUS takes the cases, it's still appears pretty damn unlikely Trump wins any of them, but it will take longer.  If that happens, it will be important to see if SCOTUS expedites its rulings to early 2020 as opposed to by June.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 hour ago, Celery Man said:

What happens when the Supreme Court rules, Trump says “no”, and not a single republican does a thing?

How can he stop Deutsche Bank and Capital One from following the ruling?  Trump could surely get away without complying but I don't think they could. Regardless of what the GOP allows, the banks would be completely fucked if they told Congress and the SCOTUS to fuck off. 

[Biff Tannen 45757]

8 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

How can he stop Deutsche Bank and Capital One from following the ruling?  Trump could surely get away without complying but I don't think they could. Regardless of what the GOP allows, the banks would be completely fucked if they told Congress and the SCOTUS to fuck off. 

Well...that's actually a good point.

[Celery Man 21022]

17 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

How can he stop Deutsche Bank and Capital One from following the ruling?  Trump could surely get away without complying but I don't think they could. Regardless of what the GOP allows, the banks would be completely fucked if they told Congress and the SCOTUS to fuck off. 

well.. yeah but.... what happens when everyone at Deutsche Bank and Capital One commit suicide though.  WHAT THEN

[atomheartbevo 89891]

4 hours ago, Chrispy_ said:

’m not telling anyone to do anything. Fundamentally, I agree with you, it’s just that it isn’t realistic. I understand why people disengage from politics, hell I have myself lately. Politics move terribly slow, are very toxic, and there’s a whole lot of losing and/or not getting what you want. Even when Republicans win, the excitement is very short lived because it’s on to the next battle. It can be very draining. 

I don't think do you understand, or rather you haven't reached the level of discomfort that most of us have.   I was a campaign volunteer here in Texas for George W. in the '90s and for the '00 election, both paid and unpaid.  By proxy, I was helping other Republican candidates as well.  I saw the inside of the political machine - I saw (rather heard) George W sounding like a fast-talking Ivy League graduate, and I saw him be a good ole boy when it suited his audience.

What did it for me?  Iraq.  In a very short amount of time, I went from being a support of Bush and other Republicans to going "holy shit, what the fuck are you doing?"  I'm biased - I had been in the military, and had been in JROTC in high school, so I had a shitload of friends who were serving, who were going to be affected by this (and a few were killed).  This didn't happen slowly, and there wasn't  a "whole lot of losing and/or not getting what you want" - the Republicans got the war they wanted, with very little (relative) opposition from the Dems, and it killed a shitload of Americans, and countless innocent Iraqis.

Palin being on the ticket in 2008 sealed the deal for me, as far as completely dumping the GOP.   Trump merely reaffirmed it.

And the Republican behavior during this impeachment process was the last nail in the coffin (after dozens of other nails had already been hammered in).

[jimmyjazz 46352]

12 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

well.. yeah but.... what happens when everyone at Deutsche Bank and Capital One commit suicide though.  WHAT THEN

Excellent point, Mr. Epstein.

[atomheartbevo 89891]

 

29 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

How can he stop Deutsche Bank and Capital One from following the ruling?  Trump could surely get away without complying but I don't think they could. Regardless of what the GOP allows, the banks would be completely fucked if they told Congress and the SCOTUS to fuck off. 

He can't.  He could try and order Barr to try and force a confrontation with those dealing with the subpoenas (both the court officers and the recipients), but if things reach that point, you will see some serious shit.  Hell, even Lindsey Graham told the House Republicans to fuck off when they started trying to get Schiff's phone records.

[atomheartbevo 89891]

2 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

What I can't wait for is when Biden doesn't get the nomination and suddenly they don't care about him anymore.  Suddenly Warren or whomever will be "under investigation".  It's just such blatant bullshit.

I hope they do it.  I hope the Republicans pull out all the stops.   Going after Warren will do wonders with getting women out to vote for her.

[henrygandorf 29198]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

Sadly, you might be right.

There is nothing preventing John Bolton from testifying right now. Nothing can stop him from testifying voluntarily. He's just being a prick.

a prick with an 8 figure book deal.

[Bozo_Casanova 26614]

2 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I don't think do you understand, or rather you haven't reached the level of discomfort that most of us have.   I was a campaign volunteer here in Texas for George W. in the '90s and for the '00 election, both paid and unpaid.  By proxy, I was helping other Republican candidates as well.  I saw the inside of the political machine - I saw (rather heard) George W sounding like a fast-talking Ivy League graduate, and I saw him be a good ole boy when it suited his audience.

What did it for me?  Iraq.  In a very short amount of time, I went from being a support of Bush and other Republicans to going "holy shit, what the fuck are you doing?"  I'm biased - I had been in the military, and had been in JROTC in high school, so I had a shitload of friends who were serving, who were going to be affected by this (and a few were killed).  This didn't happen slowly, and there wasn't  a "whole lot of losing and/or not getting what you want" - the Republicans got the war they wanted, with very little (relative) opposition from the Dems, and it killed a shitload of Americans, and countless innocent Iraqis.

Palin being on the ticket in 2008 sealed the deal for me, as far as completely dumping the GOP.   Trump merely reaffirmed it.

And the Republican behavior during this impeachment process was the last nail in the coffin (after dozens of other nails had already been hammered in).

I'm an affluent, 46 year old white male in Texas. I go to church. I've owned a gun since I was six years old. I've been married to the same woman for 22 years. I am an executive of a financial services firm and a hard core free market capitalist. While we have a long way to go, I believe strongly that America IS exceptional and that American power and prestige is the central pillar that have upheld the greatest and most sustained period of relative peace and expanding human rights and dignity in history, and that we are the essential nation advancing the worthy and transformative values and ideals of Western Civilization.  I value in fiscal restraint, a strong national defense, fair and impartial justice, and the general idea that powers not granted constitutionally to the Federal Government are reserved by the states. 

How the hell could I possibly consider myself a Republican? 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20542]

Giuliani just blew up Trump's "no Quid Pro Quo"  talking point:

https://www.vox.com/2019/12/6/20998714/rudy-giuliani-quid-pro-quo-tweets-ukraine-biden

[Francisco 2.0 32432]

Surprise.

 

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

First paragraph: "As you know, this is SO UNFAIR!"

Second paragraph: "Stop this UNFAIRNESS and send it to Mitch McConnell who sits on a pile of bills so high we can see up his nose and everything will be FAIR!"

 

[Brandywine 1317]

13 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Surprise.

 

 

That lawyer guy’s been around Trump to much. Look how big that signature is.

[Celery Man 21022]

38 minutes ago, Brandywine said:

That lawyer guy’s been around Trump to much. Look how big that signature is.

he curves his letters like some sort of lib

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

3 minutes ago, Celery Man said:

he curves his letters like some sort of lib

But he signed it in Sharpie like Trump...

[Celery Man 21022]

4 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

But he signed it in Sharpie like Trump...

[henrygandorf 29198]

1 hour ago, Brandywine said:

That lawyer guy’s been around Trump to much. Look how big that signature is.

probably sat down to write this long, scathing letter.  then went to print preview, and was like, shit.  wait, let me double-space, justify some margins, spread out nadler's title, maybe throw some 12.5 font in there, oh fuck it, i'm just gonna john hancock this bitch.

[TwiceHorn 31647]

1 hour ago, Brandywine said:

That lawyer guy’s been around Trump to much. Look how big that signature is.

Sharpie signers are pathological.

[henrygandorf 29198]

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

4 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I'm an affluent, 46 year old white male in Texas. I go to church. I've owned a gun since I was six years old. I've been married to the same woman for 22 years. I am an executive of a financial services firm and a hard core free market capitalist. While we have a long way to go, I believe strongly that America IS exceptional and that American power and prestige is the central pillar that have upheld the greatest and most sustained period of relative peace and expanding human rights and dignity in history, and that we are the essential nation advancing the worthy and transformative values and ideals of Western Civilization.  I value in fiscal restraint, a strong national defense, fair and impartial justice, and the general idea that powers not granted constitutionally to the Federal Government are reserved by the states. 

How the hell could I possibly consider myself a Republican? 

To answer your question. You obviously can’t.

Because to be a Republican nowadays you have to excuse corruption and be a party that advocates lies. To deny any objective truth, because such a truth means you are are obviously corrupt and a liar. You have to be willing to sacrifice any semblance of integrity in the name of personal gain. You have to support an obviously compromised and amoral shitheel who cares not one whit for your country. You have to be willing to sit back and watch as the greatest country in the world destroys itself from within and not only not do anything to stop it, but sit back and encourage it happening. You have to be willing to destroy your country and your children’s future, despite their clear opposition to what you and your party are doing. 

That is what it means to be a Republican today.  

[notre dame joe 197]

1 hour ago, JimmyJames said:

To answer your question. You obviously can’t.

Because to be a Republican nowadays you have to excuse corruption and be a party that advocates lies. To deny any objective truth, because such a truth means you are are obviously corrupt and a liar. You have to be willing to sacrifice any semblance of integrity in the name of personal gain. You have to support an obviously compromised and amoral shitheel who cares not one whit for your country. You have to be willing to sit back and watch as the greatest country in the world destroys itself from within and not only not do anything to stop it, but sit back and encourage it happening. You have to be willing to destroy your country and your children’s future, despite their clear opposition to what you and your party are doing. 

That is what it means to be a Republican today.  

A whistleblower whom I've never met with told me just that!

[Lurch 5932]

Imagine being so delusional that you think that’s a clever retort. Stunning

[JimmyJames 12271]

9 minutes ago, notre dame joe said:

A whistleblower whom I've never met with told me just that!

Como?

[troph 24916]

8 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I'm an affluent, 46 year old white male in Texas. I go to church. I've owned a gun since I was six years old. I've been married to the same woman for 22 years. I am an executive of a financial services firm and a hard core free market capitalist. While we have a long way to go, I believe strongly that America IS exceptional and that American power and prestige is the central pillar that have upheld the greatest and most sustained period of relative peace and expanding human rights and dignity in history, and that we are the essential nation advancing the worthy and transformative values and ideals of Western Civilization.  I value in fiscal restraint, a strong national defense, fair and impartial justice, and the general idea that powers not granted constitutionally to the Federal Government are reserved by the states. 

How the hell could I possibly consider myself a Republican? 

there is very little you stand for that I disagree with, maybe nothing.  I suspect we would find difference on what powers are granted to the feds and maybe the scope of the bill of rights and the 14th, I'm guessing, maybe.  but other than that, I see nothing objectionable.  I'm about as vocal of a democrat now as one can be.  I think an argument can be made that the party most closely aligned with your ideals is the Democratic party.  that seems shocking, but fair and impartial justice?  hello Trump.  strong national defense seems part and parcel with national security, hello Putin and Trump. Fiscal restraint?  government deficits under Trump, wow.  maybe the power of the federal government, maybe that's where Republicans win you back, wait, Trump shouldn't be subject to checks and balances, executive privilege is a broadly applied privilege that means he can do what he wants, wait that's not going to fly either.  not sure your home, and you've already said it, but there's no way you can be a Republican with those values.

[horncyclist 1391]

4 hours ago, troph said:

there is very little you stand for that I disagree with, maybe nothing.  I suspect we would find difference on what powers are granted to the feds and maybe the scope of the bill of rights and the 14th, I'm guessing, maybe.  but other than that, I see nothing objectionable.  I'm about as vocal of a democrat now as one can be.  I think an argument can be made that the party most closely aligned with your ideals is the Democratic party.  that seems shocking, but fair and impartial justice?  hello Trump.  strong national defense seems part and parcel with national security, hello Putin and Trump. Fiscal restraint?  government deficits under Trump, wow.  maybe the power of the federal government, maybe that's where Republicans win you back, wait, Trump shouldn't be subject to checks and balances, executive privilege is a broadly applied privilege that means he can do what he wants, wait that's not going to fly either.  not sure your home, and you've already said it, but there's no way you can be a Republican with those values.

This is interesting discussion. I'd add on national defense that it's important to distinguish a strong national defense from high defense spending. I'd imagine if you got rid of all the bloat and corruption between the Pentagon and military-industrial complex, you'd have a much stronger national defense. It's yet another example of the hypocrisy of the republican party. They've manipulated all these proclaimed values and principles that are central and dear to our nation and used them to enrich themselves. Look at Fed Soc, privatization policies, regressive tax cuts. The list goes on and on. I don't know how anyone who believes in anything--other than selfish greed--could support the republican party today. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26614]

This is interesting discussion. I'd add on national defense that it's important to distinguish a strong national defense from high defense spending. I'd imagine if you got rid of all the bloat and corruption between the Pentagon and military-industrial complex, you'd have a much stronger national defense.

Crucial point.

In my basic view we have three militaries:
1) a 21st Century Military
2) a 20th Century military
3) a jobs and training program, particularly for the middle class and minorities.

We need to invest more in #1, make massive cuts in #2 and attrit #3 to a civilian equivalent like a rebooted Civilian Conservation Corps that would rebuild our infrastructure.

[troph 24916]

This is interesting discussion. I'd add on national defense that it's important to distinguish a strong national defense from high defense spending. I'd imagine if you got rid of all the bloat and corruption between the Pentagon and military-industrial complex, you'd have a much stronger national defense. It's yet another example of the hypocrisy of the republican party. They've manipulated all these proclaimed values and principles that are central and dear to our nation and used them to enrich themselves. Look at Fed Soc, privatization policies, regressive tax cuts. The list goes on and on. I don't know how anyone who believes in anything--other than selfish greed--could support the republican party today. 

I would say having a stockpile of weapons is one thing, deploying them and using the threat of them effectively is another. How we’ve responded to Russian aggression is a great example. Sanctions along with stronger agreements with our allies and strategic deployment will cause Putin to pause. But we aren’t doing that. It may be cool to have new weaponry but it’s not working for us effectively because half of republicans see Russia as a pseudo ally now. Mitt had it right.

[TwiceHorn 31647]

9 hours ago, troph said:

there is very little you stand for that I disagree with, maybe nothing.  I suspect we would find difference on what powers are granted to the feds and maybe the scope of the bill of rights and the 14th, I'm guessing, maybe.  but other than that, I see nothing objectionable.  I'm about as vocal of a democrat now as one can be.  I think an argument can be made that the party most closely aligned with your ideals is the Democratic party.  that seems shocking, but fair and impartial justice?  hello Trump.  strong national defense seems part and parcel with national security, hello Putin and Trump. Fiscal restraint?  government deficits under Trump, wow.  maybe the power of the federal government, maybe that's where Republicans win you back, wait, Trump shouldn't be subject to checks and balances, executive privilege is a broadly applied privilege that means he can do what he wants, wait that's not going to fly either.  not sure your home, and you've already said it, but there's no way you can be a Republican with those values.

Bozo's definition is that of a conservative in a classical liberal tradition.  Which at one time, more or less, the GOP stood for.  Or at least was more closely aligned than the Democratic Party.

Obviously, it doesn't stand for any of those things now.

I think there are a couple of major problems that set the GOP on the road to perdition.  The first permeates both parties, and that is putting the desire to get (re)elected and retain power ahead of the desire to do good things for the country in keeping with your platform.  And that implicates money and becoming beholden to those with the gold.

The second is a more uniquely GOP problem and that is the social aspect of conservatism.  The traditional role of a conservative is to oppose or question new (expensive and expansive) government programs, many ostensibly promoting some social good.  The role is to question whether it is good and effective policy, whether it will have dire unintended consequences, and whether it just costs too damn much, as nice as it might be to have.  That role is extremely valuable, I think, in producing compromise that still permits progress, while not spending directly into oblivion or turning into a grotesque welfare state.  The role is not to demonize the beneficiaries of that program as somehow undeserving, of either the program or citizenship or life itself.

I think the second is directly traceable to the influence of religiosity in politics, as noted by Goldwater.  Note the use of the term "religiosity."  It is not synonymous with religion, but can overlap, for sure.

Because of the first, the GOP could no longer make any claim to fiscal conservatism.  For a while, it was able to attract voters based on "social conservatism" or the culture war that became increasingly ugly and untethered from any policy goal.  But, as the population changed, that lost the ability to secure sufficient votes to insure election.

Trump came up with this toxic populist, nationalist, fucking The Apprentice platform thing that mobilized the idiots and got the fucker elected.  Because the GOP doesn't really have any sort of viable platform anymore, it has seized on Trumpism in a last-ditch effort to retain power.

That's my theory, anyway.

Edited December 7, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

This topic above is interesting, but back to some impeachment inquiry news. The reporter, Desiderio, suggests in his commentary that Schiff may be laying groundwork for the Senate phase:

 

[troph 24916]

Bozo's definition is that of a conservative in a classical liberal tradition.  Which at one time, more or less, the GOP stood for.  Or at least was more closely aligned than the Democratic Party.

Obviously, it doesn't stand for any of those things now.

I think there are a couple of major problems that set the GOP on the road to perdition.  The first permeates both parties, and that is putting the desire to get (re)elected and retain power ahead of the desire to do good things for the country in keeping with your platform.  And that implicates money and becoming beholden to those with the gold.

The second is a more uniquely GOP problem and that is the social aspect of conservatism.  The traditional role of a conservative is to oppose or question new (expensive and expansive) government programs, many ostensibly promoting some social good.  The role is to question whether it is good and effective policy, whether it will have dire unintended consequences, and whether it just costs too damn much, as nice as it might be to have.  That role is extremely valuable, I think, in producing compromise that still permits progress, while not spending directly into oblivion or turning into a grotesque welfare state.  The role is not to demonize the beneficiaries of that program as somehow undeserving, of either the program or citizenship or life itself.

I think the second is directly traceable to the influence of religiosity in politics, as noted by Goldwater.  Note the use of the term "religiosity."  It is not synonymous with religion, but can overlap, for sure.

Because of the first, the GOP could no longer make any claim to fiscal conservatism.  For a while, it was able to attract voters based on "social conservatism" or the culture war that became increasingly ugly and untethered from any policy goal.  But, as the population changed, that lost the ability to secure sufficient votes to insure election.

Trump came up with this toxic populist, nationalist, fucking The Apprentice platform thing that mobilized the idiots and got the fucker elected.  Because the GOP doesn't really have any sort of viable platform anymore, it has seized on Trumpism in a last-ditch effort to retain power.

That's my theory, anyway.

 

That’s exactly right along with the racist angle. Republicans have harbored the racists in America since the shift to religious based conservatism.

[bolverk 29779]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Bozo's definition is that of a conservative in a classical liberal tradition.  Which at one time, more or less, the GOP stood for.  Or at least was more closely aligned than the Democratic Party.

Obviously, it doesn't stand for any of those things now.

I think there are a couple of major problems that set the GOP on the road to perdition.  The first permeates both parties, and that is putting the desire to get (re)elected and retain power ahead of the desire to do good things for the country in keeping with your platform.  And that implicates money and becoming beholden to those with the gold.

The second is a more uniquely GOP problem and that is the social aspect of conservatism.  The traditional role of a conservative is to oppose or question new (expensive and expansive) government programs, many ostensibly promoting some social good.  The role is to question whether it is good and effective policy, whether it will have dire unintended consequences, and whether it just costs too damn much, as nice as it might be to have.  That role is extremely valuable, I think, in producing compromise that still permits progress, while not spending directly into oblivion or turning into a grotesque welfare state.  The role is not to demonize the beneficiaries of that program as somehow undeserving, of either the program or citizenship or life itself.

I think the second is directly traceable to the influence of religiosity in politics, as noted by Goldwater.  Note the use of the term "religiosity."  It is not synonymous with religion, but can overlap, for sure.

Because of the first, the GOP could no longer make any claim to fiscal conservatism.  For a while, it was able to attract voters based on "social conservatism" or the culture war that became increasingly ugly and untethered from any policy goal.  But, as the population changed, that lost the ability to secure sufficient votes to insure election.

Trump came up with this toxic populist, nationalist, fucking The Apprentice platform thing that mobilized the idiots and got the fucker elected.  Because the GOP doesn't really have any sort of viable platform anymore, it has seized on Trumpism in a last-ditch effort to retain power.

That's my theory, anyway.

You should also consider the role of Pat Buchanan's culture wars within your thesis regarding the revolutionary takeover of the GOP.

If he wasn't a warning sign in 1996, you were asleep at the wheel.

[bolverk 29779]

Or you could consider Pat Robertson's Iowa victory in 1988 over big Bush. That was my first sign as a Republican-raised teen that these GOP fuckers were the 'youth group' leaders of politics.

Fuck those hypocrites forever and ever, amen.

[TwiceHorn 31647]

21 minutes ago, bolverk said:

You should also consider the role of Pat Buchanan's culture wars within your thesis regarding the revolutionary takeover of the GOP.

If he wasn't a warning sign in 1996, you were asleep at the wheel.

I mean, that's exactly what I'm talking about.  Buchanan secularized some of the things the religious types were bringing in and turned things ugly.

Same with Robertson.  But Robertson and some of the other religious inroads could be dismissed as isolated.  Buchanan started mainstreaming ugly into the party.  Oddly enough, if you were really paying attention, Buchanan represented the reactionary, Opus Dei style Catholics, but he downplayed that connection and was viewed by most as a secular voice.

The essence of conservatism is always going to be caution moving forward, which can easily turn into resistance and then a desire to move backward.  Moving backward is rarely a good thing.

I was just talking in terms of macro trends, not specific figures and events.  There are countless of them.

Edited December 7, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Degenerate Gardner 4089]

10 minutes ago, troph said:

 

That’s exactly right along with the racist angle. Republicans have harbored the racists in America since the shift to religious based conservatism.

Republicans offer safe harbor to the brown-hating racists, that's for sure. The right's cliche retort would be that Dems hate the white man, but given their demonization of the libz & willingness to cut off lady liberty's nose to spite her face, I think Republicans lead in white hate too. In that sense they're equal opportunity haters.