And here’s the thing: I totally understand that it’s Trump and a small contingent driving the bullshit. I get it. He’s doing what business people do and litigating to the bitter end hoping something breaks his way.
But they’re getting a free pass by the majority of the GOP on this fraud, and that I can’t abide. Not everyone, and I’ve noted that as well. But too much of the leadership.
Fair enough and well said. After I posted earlier I read that 17 states had joined the Texas publicity stunt and the chances for GOP redemption fell even lower, if that’s possible.
Unfortunately I don’t see this happening anytime soon. Trump and his family are positioning themselves to rule this party for awhile, and are the kind of people who would split the party if they don’t get their way. The rest of the GOP knows this and will submit in order to maintain relevance. I hope I am wrong. I’m not a fan of most GOP policies, but at least a sane GOP makes politics somewhat palatable.
Btw, let’s audit the GOP and the principles they’ve espoused:
Fiscal conservatism? 0 for 1. Deficits as far as the eye can see, no serious spending reform.
Family values and morality? 0 for 2. Porn star payoff after cheating on a wife recovering from childbirth is the obvious giveaway, but it goes way beyond that, to normalization and acceptance of pathological lying and mistreatment of people.
Smaller government? 0 for 3. See Fiscal Conservatism.
Freedom! 0 for 4. Four years of attacking the press.
Federalism? 0 for 5. See latest SCOTUS lawsuit. No state is secure in it’s sovereignty, other states have the right to meddle in how they conduct entirely state-wide exercises of power.
Anti-frivolous lawsuits? 0 for 6. Obviously.
Anti-judicial activism? 0 for 7. See latest SCOTUS lawsuit.
Constitutional conservatism, separation of powers? 0 for 8.
I’m sure there are others. Point being - what we’ve seen over the past 4 years can’t be excused by having to balance politics and principle at times, but instead is a complete capitulation to everything the GOP claimed to stand for.
Well said. Other than catering to trumps every whim, what does todays Republican Party stand for? Does anyone know?
I think it is somewhat accepted that eventually we will have more progressive policies on health care, the social security net, tax policy, etc. Maybe I am wrong on this? I think the GoP has a goal of slowing down this progressive policy implementation. I think this is an unspoken position. I think they know it is coming (with more automation, further wealth inequality, health care costs, etc), but it wouldn’t sound good to say this stuff out loud.
Interesting analogy I heard last night, @thunderbolt23.
Imagine the outrage if the AG’s of California, Washington State, Oregon and New York suddenly decided that were going to appeal to the Supreme Court to make guns illegal in Texas, Oklahoma Alabama and Kansas.
Now…all analogies fall short (I say that so that the Trump apologist don’t get on here and start arguing semantics instead of the point of the analogy…)
The point is that what this Texas AG is attempting a direct assault on a fundamental pillar of our Democratic Republic written in the very Constitution.
What’s even more ironic about all of this @thunderbolt23 is that language surrounding voting in the Constitution is not nearly as vague and open to interpretation as the language of the second Amendment.
For some reason that I simply can’t get my head around is that they don’t get it…or choose to ignore what they are doing in order to appease Trump and his base…
Yeah. Instead of voting we can just let Texas appoint all of our representatives.
Then we can have ballance. The coasts can elect the president, Texas can appoint our respective reps, and anybody else who has an opinion on how their state or nation is run can stfu.
My hope is that the PA Supreme Court threw out the suit to disregard the bad or illegal or what ever weren’t for Trump because it would be antithetical to literally everything we stand for as a nation, and the SCOTUS will do the same.
But you’re exactly right - the door is flung open* to other blue states challenging red states on the red states’ interpretation of the Constitution and even its own state laws. That’s anarchy ubdrr our system, and certainly no basis in “original understanding” that this is viable as a course of action by states.
It’s absurd.
*I say “opening the doors”, but only in concept. SCOTUS is going to squash this out of the gates.
This is a great plan. Unless aging conservatives who have turned into raging liberals, make those appointments. :7)
Speaking of, @thunderbolt23 - your list is well constructed, but could be directed at the Dems just as easily. In fact, at the Congreassional level, seat swaps and increases in minority support would indicate the Dems are neither as angelic, nor the GOP demonic as your thousands of words have portrayed in recent years.
I would like to substantiate my statement with the election numbers, but can’t quickly locate a data set and l gotta feed cows so you high rollers can have steak.
How is changing the state election laws by boards, etc rather than the Constitutionally prescribed Legislatures not the exact same thing. Don’t blow me off or act like this is a personal affront. How is it different?
I don’t think this adds up. Who people vote for isn’t a good indicator of who is good or evil (Hitler won elections after all).
I don’t think either side is all good or all bad. I think in 2020, the DEMs were the lesser of two evils. The lesser of two bad things is by definition the better choice if we can only pick one or the other.
I’m not blowing you off, @treco. I just don’t understand the question you are asking.
Are you supporting the action of the Texas AG?
And then we can pack the SCOTUS by letting all of the leftover states appoint a SCustis so that they don’t feel left out. 
Im asking if changes that occured that circumvented the procedure laid out in the Constitution (by election boards or state courts rather than through stste legislation) how is that less an attack on the Constitution than Paxton claiming unequal access?
Not a word said in here. Courts seemingly ignoring the open fact, when those things did occur.
Why is it different?
Note - l don’t claim any legal training, don’t know why some acts are ignored or others fully explored under the law (openly attacking a Federal facility in Seattle with little repercussion)
Sorry. Call me ignorant. (or extremely biased, which I can only hope I am not).
I still don’t understand the question.
Haha
Day and night, l read here and in the MSM how l am a coward and utterly lacking in principles for not condemning GOP, much less agree with them or gasp vote for them.
I did pop a 1700# bull on the nose 2 days ago that was kind of fronting me up, while l was messing with a hay ring.
Crazy maybe, but coward? I admit getting an adrenaline blast as he held ground.
Anyone…and I mean ANYONE who supported all of the rioting in the Northeast are no better than those who are silent on all that Trump and his sycophants are doing now.
You said Paxton suit is an affront to constitution pillar.
Is state court decision or state electoral boards changing election laws Rather Than letting the constitutionally prescribed mandadte that only state legislatures control that any less an attack on the constitution ?
It is my understanding, that with the exception of the PA Court extending the date when mailed in votes could be counted; all the other modifications were either passed by the state legislators, or the state laws granted the election boards authorization to make changes as they see fit.