GOP thread

[reo]

 

 

 

 

[Starkiller]

10 hours ago, Justafan said:

I never mentioned Trans

sorry, I misinterpreted what you said about men and women playing sports being equal…

 

 

10 hours ago, Justafan said:

yeah, absolutely one of those was based on clear evidence of morality and suffering and another is a blind belief based on how one wishes the world was rather than how it actually is.

These are both dogma. Different eras of thinking, but both clearly dogma.

 

 

10 hours ago, Justafan said:

Fair enough though. I see that in your mind words mean whatever supports your argument in the moment. Politics are never consistent and this is part of the problem. 

No, words just mean what they mean and you are taking a lot for granted. Like it’s obvious today that slavery and treating women and minorities as 2nd class citizens is “wrong” but at the time it would be incredibly dogmatic to hold a political belief that the system was wrong and needed to be upended.

 

10 hours ago, Justafan said:

It's pretty funny that a Democrat would talk to anyone about consistency in their definitions. 

Look, it’s clear that you are a conservative and have no love for the Democratic Party. And I’m actually fine with that as we don’t have a lot of conservative posters around here willing to actually have a rational debate, so good for you. But I have no idea what it is about Democrats that you think means they have no “consistency in their definitions”.

Edited November 20 by Starkiller

[Justafan]

21 minutes ago, Starkiller said:

sorry, I misinterpreted what you said about men and women playing sports being equal…

 

 

These are both dogma. Different eras of thinking, but both clearly dogma.

 

 

No, words just mean what they mean and you are taking a lot for granted. Like it’s obvious today that slavery and treating women and minorities as 2nd class citizens is “wrong” but at the time it would be incredibly dogmatic to hold a political belief that the system was wrong and needed to be upended.

 

Look, it’s clear that you are a conservative and have no love for the Democratic Party. And I’m actually fine with that as we don’t have a lot of conservative posters around here willing to actually have a rational debate, so good for you. But I have no idea what it is about Democrats that you think means they have no “consistency in their definitions”.

I'm not a conservative. I do like some conservative ideals but I don't affiliate with either party. I voted for Biden over Trump and will do it again. Hell, I registered as a republican just so I could vote against Trump in the primary.

 

I'm very much against religion in politics and I do want equal rights for minority groups, regardless of what many on here would claim. Im for common-sense compromising and pragmatic politics. Neither party comes close to fitting that bill in my opinion. If the moderates had control I might be swayed by Republicans but they don't and the extremists disgust me with their intentionally provocative rhetoric.

 

As for the rest, I'll disagree and leave it at that. We had our debate and no reason to keep lobbing stones trying to convince one another of something so trivial.

[Number9]

I made a donation during the presidential.  Now, for the last three years I get requests for donations to people running all over the country. 
 

I tried STOP several times and all I get is someone else asking for money the next time. 
 

They need to work on that, imo.  

[Starkiller]

52 minutes ago, Number9 said:

I made a donation during the presidential.  Now, for the last three years I get requests for donations to people running all over the country. 
 

I tried STOP several times and all I get is someone else asking for money the next time. 
 

They need to work on that, imo.  

Once you donate they never stop asking for more…

[Number9]

23 minutes ago, Starkiller said:

Once you donate they never stop asking for more…

I didn’t give that much.  I’m getting surveillance. Hey, will you take this survey?  I’m certain they know it is a pia for people who support them, but statistically they get more money in the long run. 

[Starkiller]

49 minutes ago, Number9 said:

I didn’t give that much.  I’m getting surveillance. Hey, will you take this survey?  I’m certain they know it is a pia for people who support them, but statistically they get more money in the long run. 

I donated to the DCCC for the first time ever last month through Act Blue. I have only ever donated to 2 presidential campaigns and zero anything else political. I started getting all sorts of emails from new Democratic Party sources right after this last donation.

 

But I’ve donated to other nonprofits, and that’s how it always works. “Hey, this guy gave us money! Great, ask him for more!”

Edited November 20 by Starkiller

[Rogue]

6 hours ago, Justafan said:

I'm very much against religion in politics.

I think this is where you’ve caught some flack in regards to what is the biggest threat.  
 

“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” 

 

Perhaps one day liberals demanding I’m wrong might manifest itself into a fascist government, but that’s not today.  

 

This, on the other hand, is knocking on the door.  
 

 

[Justafan]

1 hour ago, Rogue said:

I think this is where you’ve caught some flack in regards to what is the biggest threat.  
 

“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” 

 

Perhaps one day liberals demanding I’m wrong might manifest itself into a fascist government, but that’s not today.  

 

This, on the other hand, is knocking on the door.  
 

 

But I never claimed it wasn't. Maybe I poorly espoused my opinion; that's fair, but it's also fair to say that people looking for a fight found one, and they used me as an excuse to argue against a point I never made. 

[begooode]

The House GOP 'leaders' continuously insist that certifying Biden's election is a disqualifying criteria for repub leadership positions. What was once considered extreme is legitimatized and mainstreamed. Now the call has begun to rewrite the history of the Jan6 committee. With speaker Johnson, will this extreme demand to twist the results that we saw with our own eyes become mainstreamed.

 

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) on Sunday called on Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) to create a new Jan. 6 select committee she said would target the original members of the panel and exonerate the so-called “MAGA” wing of the Republican Party from blame associated with the 2021 attack on the Capitol.

 

In a post on X, formerly Twitter, Greene outlined her vision for the committee. She said it must issue subpoenas to the original committee members, to former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and to the witnesses who testified.

 

“I’m calling on @SpeakerJohnson to create a January 6th Select Committee,” Greene wrote in her post on X. “Releasing the tapes is not enough! There needs to be investigations and ACCOUNTABILITY for ALL of the lies, deceit, and lives ruined,” she added.

[Starkiller]

A panel of judges in a federal appeals court said Monday that only the federal government — not citizens and groups — can sue under a key part of the Voting Rights Act, effectively gutting the legislation in seven states.

 

The ruling, which applies to Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota, found that only the U.S. attorney general is able to bring a suit under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

 

The vast majority of Voting Rights Act claims are brought by private citizens and civil rights groups, who foot the bill for time-consuming litigation to protect voting rights. The Department of Justice, with limited staff and resources, typically brings just a small fraction of the cases fought nationally.

 

The ruling is sure to be challenged — likely to the U.S. Supreme Court — which has limited the voting law's power significantly over the last decade.

 

"If this ruling were allowed to stand, it would decimate the Voting Rights Act," Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the UCLA School of Law, said.

 
The ruling, affirming a lower court's dismissal of the case, goes against decades of precedent in which judges have assumed or specifically affirmed a private right of action under the Voting Rights Act.

[IsntLifeFunny]

1 hour ago, Starkiller said:

A panel of judges in a federal appeals court said Monday that only the federal government — not citizens and groups — can sue under a key part of the Voting Rights Act, effectively gutting the legislation in seven states.

 

The ruling, which applies to Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota, found that only the U.S. attorney general is able to bring a suit under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

 

The vast majority of Voting Rights Act claims are brought by private citizens and civil rights groups, who foot the bill for time-consuming litigation to protect voting rights. The Department of Justice, with limited staff and resources, typically brings just a small fraction of the cases fought nationally.

 

The ruling is sure to be challenged — likely to the U.S. Supreme Court — which has limited the voting law's power significantly over the last decade.

 

"If this ruling were allowed to stand, it would decimate the Voting Rights Act," Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the UCLA School of Law, said.

 
The ruling, affirming a lower court's dismissal of the case, goes against decades of precedent in which judges have assumed or specifically affirmed a private right of action under the Voting Rights Act.

One can only assume who made up that panel. 

[Somedude]

Klanned Karenhood OR Twatzies?

[Starkiller]

Ostensibly liberal big money donors exposed for supporting Trump and Project 2025. The wealthy just want to appear liberal to the public while getting their tax cuts. And it’s why the Supreme Court conservatives ruled that dark money should be secret and unlimited.

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/conservative-group-accidentally-reveals-its-secret-donors-some-of-them-are-liberal-orgs

 

A conservative nonprofit tied to a controversial “White House-in-waiting” for a second Donald Trump presidency has apparently unintentionally revealed its top donors—and two of them are foundations famously associated with liberal causes.

 

The nonprofit, called American Compass, included the names of five donor organizations on a schedule in its 2022 tax statement, a copy of which was obtained by The Daily Beast. The page header says, “Do Not File” and “Not Open to Public Inspection,” indicating the donors may have been accidentally disclosed.

 

Of the five groups, two stand out for their prominent histories of supporting liberal causes—the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the Omidyar Network Foundation.

According to the tax statement, the Omidyar Network has contributed a total of $400,000 to American Compass since 2020. (In reality, Omidyar has donated $500,000, including forthcoming installments.) The Hewlett Foundation—a longtime supporter of National Public Radio—has accounted for more than one-third of American Compass’ total public support, giving a combined $1,486,000 over the same period, with an extra $475,000 dose this January.

 

That’s more than Hewlett gave to NPR or the Planned Parenthood Federation of America in the same timeframe.

 

The donations are striking because American Compass is a partner organization in Project 2025, a controversial right-wing think tank that has been building the policy and personnel firmament for a second Trump administration.

 

Project 2025 is an arm of the Heritage Foundation and it has been criticized for its hard-right, authoritarian agenda—including “dehumanizing” rhetoric towards the LGBTQ community, re-upping Trump’s attempt to include citizenship on the census, leveraging the power of the Justice Department to crack down on critics, and a potentially unconstitutional plan to sic U.S. troops on domestic protesters.

 

The Hewlett Foundation and the Omidyar Network are heavyweight philanthropic organizations that have long been considered bastions of liberalism. The Omidyar Network—founded by former tech mogul Pierre Omidyar—has poured money into Democratic dark money groups and spends enormous resources promoting pluralism and fighting racism globally. (Omidyar founded eBay in 1995, and provided the original funding for the news site The Intercept.)

 

The Hewlett Foundation likewise invests in left-leaning causes, promoting women’s rights, environmental reform, and the arts around the world—though Hewlett has also passed some money on to more typically conservative economic groups.

 

American Compass also disclosed support from another center-left group, the Action Now Initiative, which has contributed a total $250,000 since 2020, according to the tax return. ANI is run by John Arnold, a billionaire former Enron executive and Democrat whose nonprofit network has funded aerial police surveillance in Baltimore, among other controversial philanthropic investments.

[Justafan]

It's like virtue signaling with your money!