Whither the GOP post Trump 2020 election loss
-
There are hopelessly complicated status reasons for propagating an existential threat narrative, and good reason not to take them seriously. And then, even if one does take them seriously, inevitably left uninvestigated is the process by which a POTUS becomes Hitler within our system of checks and balances, and within our entirely polarized society, where half the population and most of people at the institutional levers, do not like him, and are completely unafraid to say that and act on it.
@Horace said in Whither the GOP post Trump 2020 election loss:
There are hopelessly complicated status reasons for propagating an existential threat narrative, and good reason not to take them seriously. And then, even if one does take them seriously, inevitably left uninvestigated is the process by which a POTUS becomes Hitler within our system of checks and balances, and within our entirely polarized society, where half the population and most of people at the institutional levers, do not like him, and are completely unafraid to say that and act on it.
Can you rewrite in simple English? LOL
(Just tease you (but only a little bit). LOL. Your writing is very good, but it takes me at least 2 or more re-reads to try and understand! ). :couple_with_heart:
-
@Horace said in Whither the GOP post Trump 2020 election loss:
There are hopelessly complicated status reasons for propagating an existential threat narrative, and good reason not to take them seriously. And then, even if one does take them seriously, inevitably left uninvestigated is the process by which a POTUS becomes Hitler within our system of checks and balances, and within our entirely polarized society, where half the population and most of people at the institutional levers, do not like him, and are completely unafraid to say that and act on it.
Can you rewrite in simple English? LOL
(Just tease you (but only a little bit). LOL. Your writing is very good, but it takes me at least 2 or more re-reads to try and understand! ). :couple_with_heart:
@taiwan_girl said in Whither the GOP post Trump 2020 election loss:
@Horace said in Whither the GOP post Trump 2020 election loss:
There are hopelessly complicated status reasons for propagating an existential threat narrative, and good reason not to take them seriously. And then, even if one does take them seriously, inevitably left uninvestigated is the process by which a POTUS becomes Hitler within our system of checks and balances, and within our entirely polarized society, where half the population and most of people at the institutional levers, do not like him, and are completely unafraid to say that and act on it.
Can you rewrite in simple English? LOL
(Just tease you (but only a little bit). LOL. Your writing is very good, but it takes me at least 2 or more re-reads to try and understand! ). :couple_with_heart:
For instance one of the signatories Scarramucci has a side gig of going on CNN etc to propagate TDS narratives. There are plenty of social and economic incentives to use one's status as a first-hand Trump expert, to say the right things that media companies are willing to pay for.
-
This sort of "borrowed credibility" is a common tactic when propagating desired narratives. For instance, white progressives will lean into the idea that they are only backing up the opinions of minorities, and they will inevitably find some minorities who happen to agree with whatever the white progressives would like to be true. You have to be careful, when assessing narratives, that your natural inclination to trust those with first-hand experience, might be used against you.
-
@Horace said in Whither the GOP post Trump 2020 election loss:
TG consider the endorsements to be slam dunks.
I dont think that endorsements do much (if anything).
I am just surprised that the comments and insights of people who worked more closer to President Trump than pretty much anyone else are discounted. As I have said before, I dont necessary agree or disagree with their politics, but their insights carry some weight.
If you are looking to eat at a restaurant, what would you trust more; the review of the brother of the owner, or the review of the people who worked there?
@taiwan_girl said in Whither the GOP post Trump 2020 election loss:
@Horace said in Whither the GOP post Trump 2020 election loss:
TG consider the endorsements to be slam dunks.
I dont think that endorsements do much (if anything).
I am just surprised that the comments and insights of people who worked more closer to President Trump than pretty much anyone else are discounted. As I have said before, I dont necessary agree or disagree with their politics, but their insights carry some weight.
If you are looking to eat at a restaurant, what would you trust more; the review of the brother of the owner, or the review of the people who worked there?
Depends, were those people fired?
The Brad
-
Two failed politicians.
Trump - Hitler could've done some shit in 2016, and he didn't.
Harris - could have fixed everything in the last 3 years, and she didn't.
Also remember who owns the Atlantic. Lauren Powell Jobs, Steve's widow. She is well known to be close friends with...
Oh, wait...wrong friend.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Whither the GOP post Trump 2020 election loss:
@Horace said in Whither the GOP post Trump 2020 election loss:
TG consider the endorsements to be slam dunks.
I dont think that endorsements do much (if anything).
I am just surprised that the comments and insights of people who worked more closer to President Trump than pretty much anyone else are discounted. As I have said before, I dont necessary agree or disagree with their politics, but their insights carry some weight.
If you are looking to eat at a restaurant, what would you trust more; the review of the brother of the owner, or the review of the people who worked there?
Depends, were those people fired?
@LuFins-Dad said in Whither the GOP post Trump 2020 election loss:
Depends, were those people fired?
If one person makes a bad comment about closely working with President Trump, yeah, he could be a sour grape. Five people who worked closely with him, hmmm maybe still a sour grape. When you get to 10 or more, I have to think that there is something to it. And again, most of these people are not a junior analyst who only sees President Trump on TV. These are people who probably spent more time on a daily basis with President Trump than his wife.
-
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) reportedly said that President-elect Donald Trump’s victory puts Americans in “a very, very dangerous world,” stressing that he plans to spend his final two years in the Senate pushing back against the growing Trump-fueled isolationism within the GOP.
“We’re in a very, very dangerous world right now, reminiscent of before World War II,” McConnell told the Financial Times on Wednesday. “Even the slogan is the same, ‘America First.’ That was what they said in the ’30s.”
https://www.ft.com/content/11d29c2f-4575-4f33-9419-b7abca1dbf39
-
Like Pelosi, time has now passed by The Turtle.
-
@Jolly I agree that he is on the downslope of his career, but do you disagree with what he is saying?
@taiwan_girl said in Whither the GOP post Trump 2020 election loss:
@Jolly I agree that he is on the downslope of his career, but do you disagree with what he is saying?
The story is paywalled. Does he say anything beyond what you quoted?
-
@Jolly said in Whither the GOP post Trump 2020 election loss:
Yep.
What part do you disagree with,
That we live in a dangerous world?
That America First is a slogan used now?
That America First was a slogan used in the 30s?
Or that Trump handing Putin a W makes the world more dangerous? -
-
If someone tried to forcefully take over your property and the state forced a settlement on you that ceded 25% of it to the aggressor, would you consider that a loss?
@jon-nyc said in Whither the GOP post Trump 2020 election loss:
If someone tried to forcefully take over your property and the state forced a settlement on you that ceded 25% of it to the aggressor, would you consider that a loss?
I refer you to the second half of my one-sentence post.
"as compared to <whatever the hell anybody expected if Kamala had won>."
What hypothetical outcome, in a Harris regime, are you comparing Trump's "handing Putin a W" to?
Education is extremely important.
-
@horace - Does not really go too far beyond, but below is the article.
(Kind of funny, but when I copied and pasted, this "thing" popped up to tell me I should not be copying and pasting articles from the Financial Times. :eek. Hopefully, no one from FT will come to knock on your door!! LOL)
Mitch McConnell is standing in his office smiling. Hanging on the walls are faces, mostly stern, from Washington’s past. McConnell’s portrait might soon join them. Last month, the Republican leader in the US Senate stepped down from the role he has held for longer than anyone in US political history. At the age of 82, McConnell is “ready to do something else”.
A pivotal politician in a tumultuous time, McConnell earned power and used it to shift the country to the right during his 17-year tenure. He won races across the country, raised more than $1bn to boost his colleagues and negotiated trillion-dollar-plus bills, including the aid that lifted the country out of the pandemic. He became enormously influential and broadly unpopular, making enemies among Democrats for blocking judicial nominations to the Supreme Court and among Republicans for his occasional, sharp criticisms of Donald Trump. With the latter preparing to return to the White House next month, the veteran lawmaker issues a warning from America’s past. “We’re in a very, very dangerous world right now, reminiscent of before world war two,” he says. “Even the slogan is the same. ‘America First.’ That was what they said in the ’30s.”
Warming to his historical theme, McConnell turns to one of the portraits behind him, an influential Senate Republican of the wartime era named Robert A Taft. Son of the 27th president William Howard Taft, Robert was “a raging isolationist” who opposed Lend-Lease before the second world war and both the creation of Nato and the Marshall Plan afterwards, says McConnell. “Thank goodness Eisenhower beat him for the [presidential] nomination in ’52 and had a much different view of America’s role in the world.”
McConnell has been Kentucky senator since 1985. Having committed to serving the final two years of his term, he intends to spend the time pushing back against the increasingly isolationist elements of today’s GOP. “The cost of deterrence is considerably less than the cost of war,” he says, reeling off the figures to prove it. In the second world war, the US spent 37 per cent of GDP on the fight. Last year that figure was about 2.7 per cent.
His words are targeted directly at Trump and vice-president-elect JD Vance, who have argued that the US should not be spending any more money on Ukraine. McConnell is a strong believer in the Ronald Reagan view of the US role in the world, rather than the Trump one. “To most American voters, I think the simple answer is, ‘Let’s stay out of it.’ That was the argument made in the ’30s and that just won’t work,” he says. “Thanks to Reagan, we know what does work — not just saying peace through strength, but demonstrating it.”
Trump has also said that enemies within the US are more dangerous than Russia and China. “I don’t agree with that,” says McConnell.
Though some of his biggest moments as Senate leader came during Trump’s first presidency, he is no fan of the president-elect. Having blocked Barack Obama from replacing the late Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, McConnell was instrumental in the confirmation of three conservative justices to the court under Trump. Yet in The Price of Power, a new McConnell biography by reporter Michael Tackett, McConnell calls Trump “stupid” and a “despicable human being”.
After a pro-Trump mob attacked the Capitol on January 6 2021, McConnell said the then-president was “practically and morally responsible” for inciting the violence. Yet he didn’t vote to convict him in the ensuing impeachment trial which, if successful, would have barred Trump from running for the White House again. His rationale was that Trump was already out of office.
Today, McConnell acknowledges for the first time that he voted for Trump last month, although he can’t bring himself to mention his name. “I supported the ticket,” he says. Asked if he wishes he had done more to prevent Trump from becoming president again, McConnell says: “The election’s over and we’re moving on.”
It’s characteristic of McConnell’s brand of politics. He prizes GOP power above almost all other considerations. You could call it Republican First. But he recognises that the struggle for the future of his party is an uphill one. “He has an enormous audience, and he just won a national election, so there’s no question he’s the most influential Republican out there,” he says of Trump. He also calls Trump’s recent victory after losing in 2020 a “remarkable comeback”. As to his own part in shaping the foreign affairs of the next administration, McConnell says, “No matter who got elected president, I think it was going to require significant pushback, yeah, and I intend to be one of the pushers.”
He will chair the Senate appropriations panel’s subcommittee for defence, making decisions on how to spend billions of dollars for the Pentagon. “That’s where the real money is,” says McConnell. He doesn’t know if the US will spend more on Ukraine military aid but “the goal here is for the Russians not to win”. Of Ukraine and Israel, he says, “We’ve got two democratic allies fighting for their lives. I don’t think we ought to micromanage what they think is necessary to win.”
McConnell’s appetite for a scrap is not in doubt. He overcame polio at an early age and repeatedly sought recognition from his peers, starting with winning a role as “king” in a first-grade school pageant. Through an uncommon devotion to politics, he fought his way up from Senate intern to leader. Reflecting on his legacy, he considers his part in dramatically changing the make-up of the Supreme Court as “the most important thing that I’ve been involved in”. The court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe vs Wade is just the most prominent example of how the six conservative justices have shifted US law to the right.
A prodigious fundraiser, he has been a staunch advocate for more money in politics. The 2024 presidential and congressional races cost $16bn, according to the non-partisan non-profit Open-Secrets, compared to $5.6bn in 2000. Asked if that is too much, McConnell says: “No. It’s not. This is political speech. One of the really good things the Supreme Court has done is to get the government out of telling people how much they can spend advocating their points of view.”
On the day he became the longest-serving party leader in US Senate history, McConnell told his biographer, “I wasn’t sure I was good enough.”
Why did he feel that? “I thought of that all along the way,” says McConnell. “Mainly, I was filled with gratitude about the men and women that worked with me over the years, who were really smart and made me look better than I was every single day.” His advice on what it takes to endure as a leader is simple: “Be a good listener.”
McConnell faced questions over his health last year when he appeared to freeze while speaking to reporters on two separate occasions. Not long after our meeting it was reported he had suffered a fall in the Capitol. Following the recent Senate leadership elections that confirmed South Dakota senator John Thune as his successor, McConnell is said to have told colleagues he felt “liberated”. “I think that’s a good way to put it,” he smirks. “In the leader job, you spend a lot of time taking arrows for everybody else and trying to help everybody succeed in ways that they choose to, and you don’t give your opinion on a number of things simply because you’re asked.”
I ask about something he won’t miss. McConnell takes a long pause. “Well, I enjoyed it and wanted very much to get the job,” he says. “I just think it’s important to know when to leave the stage.”
-
@jon-nyc said in Whither the GOP post Trump 2020 election loss:
If someone tried to forcefully take over your property and the state forced a settlement on you that ceded 25% of it to the aggressor, would you consider that a loss?
I refer you to the second half of my one-sentence post.
"as compared to <whatever the hell anybody expected if Kamala had won>."
What hypothetical outcome, in a Harris regime, are you comparing Trump's "handing Putin a W" to?
@Horace said in Whither the GOP post Trump 2020 election loss:
@jon-nyc said in Whither the GOP post Trump 2020 election loss:
If someone tried to forcefully take over your property and the state forced a settlement on you that ceded 25% of it to the aggressor, would you consider that a loss?
I refer you to the second half of my one-sentence post.
"as compared to <whatever the hell anybody expected if Kamala had won>."
What hypothetical outcome, in a Harris regime, are you comparing Trump's "handing Putin a W" to?
She would not hand him a W?
If your point is ‘Putin might still be successful even with us helping Ukraine rather than coercing their surrender’ that’s true as far as it goes, but that’s very different than the US formally recognizing the land grab and lifting sanctions and encouraging Europe to do the same.
