Page 723 of 877 FirstFirst ... 223623673713719720721722723724725726727733773823 ... LastLast
Results 10,831 to 10,845 of 13142
  1. #10831
    Spectacular Member Kuro no Shinigami's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WestPhillyPunisher View Post
    She's a longtime bible thumper and was even a singer on the old Jim & Tammy Faye Bakker show. Evangelicals like her are one issue voters, and that issue is abortion, to hell with with 200,000 people having died due to Trump's hamfisted response to COVID-19. In their eyes, those are acceptable losses in the greater crusade to kill Roe v. Wade.



    Pfft! Snake oil at best, a scam at worst to lure gullible blacks who should know better than to trust a racist conman who's practiced discrimination against blacks for decades. And he came out with this half-assed scheme a mere THIRTY-NINE DAYS before the election? PLEASE! Where was this so-called plan three years ago? Trump is desperate and trolling for votes, plain and simple. Give me a break!
    Trump doesn't need Black votes but Mr. Biden does. I have recently read some pro-Trump tweets by several Black conservatives including Leo Terrell, Thomas Sowell, Christian Walker (Herschel Walker's son), Diamond and Silk. Some of the Black republicans are wealthy entrepreneurs who don't like being taxed too much. Others are against abortion. They believe that the Democrats were trying to reduce or eradicate the Black population through abortions.

    There are also some Black Cops including ex-sheriff David Clarke who support Trump. They were convinced that the BLM is more harmful than helpful towards the Black Community.

    https://twitter.com/BlueNelsonNYC

    https://twitter.com/sgtGarrisonPtl

    https://twitter.com/DarrylMAGA

  2. #10832
    Ultimate Member Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    12,656

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tami View Post
    If I was in Congress and in a positions to do so, if Trumo get's his nominee, and if the Democrats pull out a Trifecta of taking control of the House, Senate, and the WH, I woudl push to have the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary and/or the House Judiciary Committee revist Brett Kavenaugh's appointment to the Supreme Court.

    If they investigate the way it shoudl have been investigated, and if tjhey find that there is sufficent cause to prove that he committed acts that woudl have disqualified him, then they can potentially impeach him.

    if so, then Biden can nominate someone to replace him and the Court goes back to 5-4.
    This would be unlikely.

    Instigating an investigation would come across a combination of retaliation and a fishing expedition because it will be a combination of retaliation and fishing expedition.

    If they get the votes for an investigation, it's unlikely that they'll get enough material to push for Kavanaugh's removal. What exactly would an investigation reveal? The main questions are known (Did he lie under oath about committing sexual assault or his role in an earlier judicial nomination?), and it's something that other investigators (journalists, partisan activists) could look into by themselves. If there were corroborating witnesses for Christine Blasey Ford or Debra Ramirez, they would have known to come forward already.

    There is also the question of whether the left would want further scrutiny. What if they discover evidence that helps Kavanaugh, and demonstrates that a respected jurist has been maligned by much of the media? If they discover reasons to doubt Ms. Ford, should that be made public?

    The main results of most investigation efforts would be a pissed off right, a disappointed left, and a Supreme Court justice with more reason to believe elected Democrats operate in bad faith when he makes decisions involving the laws they've passed.

    It's a different story if someone else were to discover some evidence of wrongdoing. Congress would then be justified in using its resources to look into the matter further.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

  3. #10833
    Old school comic book fan WestPhillyPunisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    22,259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kuro no Shinigami View Post
    Trump doesn't need Black votes but Mr. Biden does. I have recently read some pro-Trump tweets by several Black conservatives including Leo Terrell, Thomas Sowell, Christian Walker (Herschel Walker's son), Diamond and Silk. Some of the Black republicans are wealthy entrepreneurs who don't like being taxed too much. Others are against abortion. They believe that the Democrats were trying to reduce or eradicate the Black population through abortions.

    There are also some Black Cops including ex-sheriff David Clarke who support Trump. They were convinced that the BLM is more harmful than helpful towards the Black Community.

    https://twitter.com/BlueNelsonNYC

    https://twitter.com/sgtGarrisonPtl

    https://twitter.com/DarrylMAGA
    So, those idiots are choosing to ignore the fact that COVID-19 has been more harmful to the black community than BLM or antifa since a disproportionate number of people of color have died from a virus that Trump knew about early, hid facts about from the American public, called a hoax by Democrats, slow walked the government’s response and generally made a royal hash of the entire business. Fuck those traitorous assclowns who would enable a known racist who’ll use them, abuse them, then kick to the curb after outliving their usefulness While screwing over the country.
    Avatar: Here's to the late, great Steve Dillon. Best. Punisher. Artist. EVER!

  4. #10834
    Ultimate Member Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    12,656

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BeastieRunner View Post
    Say goodbye to the EC then.
    I don't know about that.

    Republicans might figure that the electoral college is usually in their best interests, or that it should be kept because of history. It could be that there's some kind of fluke (someone popular in Texas winning that state by one point but losing other traditional swing states, the Pennsylvania born Vice President to the first African American President may have an unusual coalition, etc.)

    The electoral college does reward states with lower populations and does penalize states with large urban centers, which ultimately gives Republicans a consistent but not absolute edge.

    There are some further problems with having the national popular vote determine election outcomes that could give Republicans pause. States currently have different policies on how to register to vote, or what ballots get counted, and making the election dependent on the national popular vote either forces it all to be standardized or means that ballots that won't meet the standard in one state can end up counting for the popular vote if cast elsewhere. We'd also want to make sure that polling sites on the East Coast don't report anything until everything's closed on the West Coast, lest is somehow affect the outcome.

    Obama did actually overperform the national vote in the electoral college in 2008 and 2012 in the sense that the tipping point states were slightly more progressive than the national vote. There was a slight grumbling on the right, and a minor push to switch some swing states into something closer to the Maine and Nebraska models, where votes are allocated by congressional districts won. Had Republicans gone with this, it would have hurt Trump in 2016.

    There is an underappreciated reason for the arguments about the popular vote: The largest state is unusually partisan. Hillary Clinton’s margin in California was her greatest in any state in the continental US (the only larger margins were in Hawaii, and Washington DC.)

    For the electoral college, it doesn't matter how much a Democrat wins California by, but it can play a major role in the popular vote. I did the math, and if California were not part of the United States, Trump would have won 58,501,018 votes, which is roughly 47.74% of the popular vote, and Hillary Clinton would have won 57,099,726, or roughly 46.61% of the popular vote. There would be no controversy about the mismatch. If California were about as liberal as Oregon, which Hillary Clinton won by 11 points, Trump would beat Hillary in the popular vote narrowly (64,542,377 VS 64,296,806.)

    The reason I mention California is that if there were a change in the politics of California, it might have no effect on the electoral college but it could have a big impact on the popular vote. You might see Democrats regularly punching above their weight in the electoral college, and it'd be interesting to see the effects of that in terms of who's in favor of the electoral college and who wants to switch.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

  5. #10835
    Incredible Member The no face guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    907

    Default

    Well I did a left wing one, so it's only fair that I do a right wing one to...

    Conservativism:

    Modern Conservativism is a blend of Edmund Burke’s organic society and the Classical (Neo) liberalism of Smith & Ricardo. Edmund Burke is the godfather of Conversativism, who believed society was organically rooted, and therefore any radical change would result in chaos and tyranny (I.e. the French Revolution) Adam Smith & David Ricardo are the founders of classic liberal economics that believes in limited state intervention in the economy. Finally, there is a national element to Conservativism, but it is cultural not racial; in the vein of Benjamin Disraeli.

    In the United States the exemplar of Conservativism would of course be the late William F. Buckley, as well as Ronald Reagan, and to some extent Barry Goldwater.

    Progressive Conservatism:

    Generally small c conservatives that are socially/culturally progressive but prescribe to neo liberal policies of limited state intervention in the economy.

    In the United States, this was traditionally the position of the Rockefella Republicans, wealthy North East Republicans who were liberal on social issues, but were opposed to welfare state expansion. Today the best exemplar of a liberal Republican would be former Ohio governor John Kasich.

    Libertarianism:

    Libertarianism can be traced back to Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman’s Chicago school. They were largely reactions to the “Creeping socialism” of the welfare state and Keynesian intervention in the economy. Libertarians are completely liberal on social issues, but are the most extreme when it comes to defunding the welfare state, as they believe everything including the Federal Reserve should be controlled by private enterprise. They see taxes as theft, and are against exuberant spending on defense, and generally make up the “open border” wing of the Republican Party.

    In the United States, Libertarians are represented by the Koch Brothers, and Republicans like Ron Paul, and of course political commentator Peter Schiff.

    Neo Conservatism:

    Neo Conservatives (also named Regan Democrats) were liberals who broke with the Democratic Party over foreign policy issues. They are often described as “liberals who were mugged by reality.” One can trace the roots back to Woodrow Wilson’s policy of making the world safe for democracy. Neo Conservatives tend to be super hawks, advocating for first strike legislation, and increasing state surveillance in the name of National Security. In terms of the welfare state, they tend to be generally more liberal.

    In the United States the godfather of Neo Conservativism is Irving Kristol, but within the Republican Party it is best exemplified by Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush/ Cheney administration.

    Social Conservativism/ Pedagogical Conservativism

    Social Conservativism, dubbed by liberals as the “religious right” are the cultural conservatives who are usually Christian evengelicals that hold traditional views on issues such as abortion, gay marriage ect. In the United States they were a reaction to the growing liberal secularism of the 1970’s and rose to power during the Regan years of the 80’s. Pedagogical Conservatives appear to the same thing, but place more of an emphasis on issues such as immigration and multiculturalism. It is hear were things start to get more racial, as they believe that a healthy Christian society should be able to sufficiently self replicate its own population.

    In the United States, Social Conservativsm would be represented by the late Jerry Falwell, and conservative republicans like Rick Santorum. As for Pedagogical conservatives, Patrick Buchannan would fall into that category, and fruit loop conspiracy theorist Alex Jones has used this label to describe himself.

    Right Wing Populism:

    Right Wing populism is partially rooted in the German Nationalism of the 2nd Reich in 19th century, particularly under Kaiser Wilhelm who got the ball rolling on the “Yellow Peril” of the East. It was an autocratic reaction to the first era of globalization exemplified by democratic western States like the UK and France. It basically sees western society in decline, with its culture being threatened by encroaching outsiders and immigrants, and seeks to uphold more traditional values. Russia has largely taken on the role of the world’s Conservative Nationalist center today.

    In the United States, right wing populism started to arise with the No Nothing Party in the 19th century, and was particularly strong with Labour Unions on the west coast with Douglas Kearney and the Knights of Labour that led to the Chinese Exclusion Act in the United States, during the high tide of racial xenophobia. It should be noted that right wing populism is largely a blue collar movement and therefore tends to be more statist and interventionist than traditional Conservativism. Modern Right wing populism also takes some cues from fascist philosophers like Julius Evola.

    In the United States right wing populism is best exemplified by Steve Bannon, Sebastain Gorka & the Trump administration, with some former members of the Nixon administration, Patrick Buchannan, and Roger Stone, as well as to some extent Ross Perot.

    Fascism:

    Fascism largely first took root in Italy in the 1920’s under the rule of Benito Mussolini. The ideological roots of Fascism can be traced back to 19th century romanticism, whereby poets and writers rejected the growing dominance of rationalism & materialism in modern society. These ideas would eventually merge with social Darwinism; a “survival of the fittest” credo propagated by theorists like Heubert Spencer. Fascists generally reject democracy, because they believe in strong central leadership through a strong man. They are culturally conservative because they believe in strongly propagating the native population. Women are therefore best suited to become nurturing mothers to raise strong men for the state. Fascists generally believe in more state intervention often through Keynesian warfare spending.

    In the United States Fascists are of course represented by white supremacist groups, but in terms of a more traditional Benito Mussolini, Franco fascists the best exemplar would be....(This is going to piss a lot of people of) but probably Donald Trump, as he exemplifies the strong man cult of personality, and his administration engages in Keynesian warfare spending to employ industrial workers in the mid west through military contracts. He has also recently suggested that he would not step aside if he loses the election this fall.

    National Socialism/White Nationalism/White Supremacy

    Basically a more racialized version of Fascism that is rooted in the anti-Semitic myths of the 19th century propagated by German theorists like Paul De Legarde, and later writers like Houston Stewart Chamberlain. It of course is affiliated with the philosopher Fredrick Nietzsche, as well as the social Darwinism. National Socialists believe in glorifying the history of the past and propagating myths and symbols. Nazism in general, is also steeped in all sorts of occultism, whether it be Nordic myths or the Thule society.
    In the United States, this is best represented by the rising alt right movement spearheaded by Richard Spencer, as well as your traditional hate groups like the Aryan Nation, and those who propagate race based pseudo science like Jared Taylor. For me, this is obviously the most evil of all the political ideologies out there. Communism may have a larger kill count, but nothing outdoes the cruelty and barbarity of an ideology that dehumanizes a group of humans as being less capable than another.

    Neo Confederacy:

    So as a Canadian, I confess I haven’t read up on this ideology as much as an American might have, but it is generally rooted in the founding of the Klux Klux Klan that was a reaction to the reconstruction process in the South, once the Confederacy lost the war. Ideologically, it rose arose with Edward A. Pollard and the Lost Cause movement that engaged in a revisionist history designed to paint the Confederacy as victims of northern aggression trying to protect state rights. Neo confederates are basically white supremacists who believe in limited state intervention.

    In the United States, I suppose David Duke would be an example, but I really have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that anyone would want to resurrect an agricultural slave state. In general, I would like to think that 99% of the general public despises the last few ideologies, as I’m getting depressed just by writing about them.

  6. #10836
    Ultimate Member Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    12,656

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gray Lensman View Post
    And, from what I have been reading, her specific cult is the inspiration for The Handmaid's Tale.
    This is actually untrue.

    https://www.vox.com/culture/21453103...-supreme-court

    The false link between Amy Coney Barrett and The Handmaid’s Tale, explained

    They’re not actually connected. But the story spread anyway.

    On Friday, multiple news outlets reported that President Trump planned to select Notre Dame law professor and federal appellate judge Amy Coney Barrett to take Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court. The news threatens to reignite a storm of controversy around Barrett’s religion that has been building since 2017.

    Barrett is a devout Catholic. She has written before about how she believes Catholicism should affect a judge’s jurisprudence, and Democrats discussed her views widely when she was nominated to the federal bench in 2017. In a moment that has become infamous on the right, Sen. Dianne Feinstein declared that “the dogma lives loudly within you” during Barrett’s hearing, a phrase some conservatives took to be an attack on Barrett’s Catholicism.

    Barrett is also part of a small Catholic group known as People of Praise, and that’s where her religious affiliations get especially touchy. Some liberals argue that Barrett’s membership in this group, which teaches that husbands are the heads of families and have authority over their wives, signals that she will hand down religiously motivated conservative opinions if placed on the Supreme Court, particularly when it comes to women’s reproductive freedom and the rights of the queer community. Meanwhile, conservatives reply that Barrett is a high-powered federal judge who is also married, so she can’t be all that oppressed by her husband, and that liberal critiques of the way Barrett’s religion affects her judicial obligations are nothing more than anti-Catholic prejudice at work.

    One of the weirder ways this debate has played out since Barrett was first discussed as a potential Supreme Court nominee is the fight over whether or not People of Praise, the group of which she is a member, is also one of the inspirations for The Handmaid’s Tale. In Margaret Atwood’s 1985 dystopian novel (and its recent TV adaptation), fertile women are forced to live as childbearing slaves called handmaids. The book isn’t an established inspiration — but the story has developed legs anyway.

    The inaccurate link between the People of Praise and Atwood’s story, perpetuated by a series of confusing coincidences and uneven fact-checking, first emerged in a Newsweek article and was later picked up by Reuters. Both articles have since been corrected, but the right was furious at both. The Washington Examiner called it a “smear that just won’t die.” Fox News noted several other outlets have mentioned Barrett and The Handmaid’s Tale in the same story.

    To be absolutely clear: People of Praise is not an inspiration for The Handmaid’s Tale, and the group does not practice sexual slavery or any of the other dystopian practices Atwood wrote about in her novel. But the argument over whether or not the two are connected reflects the deeply contentious atmosphere in which Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court will occur — and the immense symbolic weight The Handmaid’s Tale carries in American popular culture.

    The Handmaid’s Tale is actually inspired by People of Hope. They’re different from People of Praise.

    Two coincidences led to the idea that there is a People of Praise–Handmaid’s Tale connection. The first coincidence is that the People of Praise once had a religious rank called “handmaid.” As reported by the New York Times in 2017, People of Praise members are all accountable to a personal adviser. Those advisers offer guidance on major life decisions, including, per the Times, “whom to date or marry, where to live, whether to take a job or buy a home, and how to raise children.” And these advisers used to be called “heads” when they were men and “handmaids” when they were women. They have since been renamed “leaders.”

    The second coincidence is that when Margaret Atwood explained her Handmaid’s Tale inspirations to the New York Times in 1987, she described one of them as “a Catholic charismatic spinoff sect, which calls the women handmaids.” Atwood did not at the time name the sect, so when her quote resurfaced in 2020, it was very easy for some readers to think, Well, People of Praise is a Catholic charismatic spinoff sect that calls the women handmaids, so there you go. Accordingly, on September 21, Newsweek reported that People of Praise was one of Atwood’s inspirations for The Handmaid’s Tale.

    Asked about her inspiration for The Handmaid’s Tale by Politico as the controversy heated up, Atwood said she wasn’t sure which group she was talking about in 1987. Her archive of work and research is at the University of Toronto, where she can’t currently access it due to Covid-19 restrictions. But she’s on the record as going through her Handmaid’s Tale archives for journalists plenty of times in the past, and during those interviews, she’s always cited People of Hope, a different Catholic charismatic spinoff that calls women handmaids.
    It does seems odd to argue that a nominee for the Supreme Court belongs to an organization that restricts women professionally. They didn't stand in the way of her becoming an academic or a judge.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

  7. #10837

  8. #10838
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    10,041

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WestPhillyPunisher View Post
    So, those idiots are choosing to ignore the fact that COVID-19 has been more harmful to the black community than BLM or antifa since a disproportionate number of people of color have died from a virus that Trump knew about early, hid facts about from the American public, called a hoax by Democrats, slow walked the government’s response and generally made a royal hash of the entire business. Fuck those traitorous assclowns who would enable a known racist who’ll use them, abuse them, then kick to the curb after outliving their usefulness While screwing over the country.
    Forget that for a moment.

    Who are the MAIN killers of black folks?? OTHER black folks.

    Where are they on that???

    They believe that the Democrats were trying to reduce or eradicate the Black population through abortions.
    4 states that lead in black abortion are REPUBLICAN.

    Do they NOT see the harm Republicans have done?

  9. #10839
    Extraordinary Member Robotman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    California
    Posts
    8,305

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    This is actually untrue.

    https://www.vox.com/culture/21453103...-supreme-court



    It does seems odd to argue that a nominee for the Supreme Court belongs to an organization that restricts women professionally. They didn't stand in the way of her becoming an academic or a judge.
    So it wasn't the direct inspiration for The Handmaids Tale, but she was still a member of this Christofascist group.

  10. #10840
    Invincible Jersey Girl Tami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    25,763
    Original join date: 11/23/2004
    Eclectic Connoisseur of all things written, drawn or imaginatively created.

  11. #10841
    Invincible Jersey Girl Tami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    25,763

    Default

    From Tom Malinowski

    I've been puzzling over why my opponent thinks this is a good argument (disparaging my refusal to accept corporate contributions to my campaign). All I can come up with is that he doesn't understand how political corruption in America works.

    Let me explain.
    First, it's true that both Senator Kean and I have received campaign contributions from sitting members of Congress who support us. And some of those members (including all backing him) accept corporate PAC checks.
    But in those cases, neither Senator Kean nor I have any reason to feel indebted to a corporation that at some point made a campaign contribution to someone else, who then in turn chose to back us. We never solicited it from a corporation, and they never directed it to us.
    The difference here is that he accepts donations directly from corporations. That means he's getting on the phone to their CEO's or lobbyists and asking them for money. And they're not giving it to him from the goodness of their hearts. They're making an investment.
    Twitter Thread Link
    Original join date: 11/23/2004
    Eclectic Connoisseur of all things written, drawn or imaginatively created.

  12. #10842
    Old school comic book fan WestPhillyPunisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    22,259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robotman View Post
    So it wasn't the direct inspiration for The Handmaids Tale, but she was still a member of this Christofascist group.
    When the hearings for Barrett take place, Democrats would be wise to avoid bringing her religious beliefs into play as that would piss off bible thumpers who've moved away from Trump but could return in force for him if it looks like she's being hammered for her faith.
    Avatar: Here's to the late, great Steve Dillon. Best. Punisher. Artist. EVER!

  13. #10843

    Default

    On this date in 2014, 2015, as well as 2016, "Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day" published profiles of Phyllis Schlafly, based on her inclusion on the 2012 Republican National Committee, helping write the GOP Party Platform, and several other platform committee slots in the decades prior to that. Schlafly, the founder of the Eagle Forum who ran for Congress way back in 1952, has been considered a radical conservative conspiracy nut since the Eisenhower Administration. Schlafly’s also been a proud anti-feminist for decades, having served as the opposite number to Gloria Steinem to prevent the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and not only believes women’s place is in the home (even though Schafly had a nanny raise her kids while she was politically active), but has given speeches where she argues there’s not even such a thing as marital rape. She’s also passionate about conspiracy theories like the secret Bilderberg Group, buys into the John Birch Society’s theories about fluoridated water, and the threat of a North American Union. Schafly argued against the GOP’s 2012 “autopsy” that suggested they find a way to attract minority voters, scoffing and saying that they should “focus on whites”. Phyllis also has been a staunch opponent of LGBT rights through the years, which is a shame considering one of her six children is gay. Another of her six children is Andrew Schlafly, the fanatically wacky creator of Conservapedia, the version of Wikipedia that exists for conservatives who reject facts and sources and instead have rewritten a version of reality on it that supports their agenda. Schlafly passed away in 2016 at the age of 92, and was eulogized by Donald Trump in the midst of his presidential campaign, whose nicest thought about Phyllis was that she liked HIM, which is kind of what her family should have expected when they asked an egomaniac to eulogize her. Schlafly remains dead, barring any sort of breakthroughs in necromancy conservatives might make to curtail womens’ rights.

    On this date in 2017, 2018, as well as 2019, “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day” posted its original profile of Bill Schuette, Michigan's Attorney General from 2010-2018, who was twice elected now with just 52% of the vote, and believe it or not, back in 1984, he won office to represent Michigan's 10th Congressional District in Congress, winning three terms before getting beat in attempt to unseat legendary U.S. Senator Carl Levin. In those six years in office, Bill Schuette managed to sponsor 11 bills, and exactly zero of them passed. That's actually understating how ineffective his time was a legislator... he even never got a bill out of committee in six years. After serving a few years as Michigan's Agricultural Commissioner, Schuette had an eight year run as a Michigan State Senator from 1994-2002. Schuette was appointed to serve as a judge from 2002-2009, bringing us to his time as Michigan AG. Schuette is known to be a fierce opponent of marijuana legalization, even for medical use, but his record as Michigan Attorney General on LGBTQ rights is perhaps his most disappointing crusade. He not only fought against marriage equality up until the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, but Schuette has even been the target of lawsuits by the ACLU in gay adoption cases as well. And if you think Schuette would be any better on women's rights, guess again, as he sued two abortion clinics over what he claimed were improper medical records disposal that opted to just close rather than go to court... and celebrated their closure. Schuette ran for Governor of Michigan in 2018 to replace utter failure, Republican Gov. Rick Snyder. Snyder's legacy as the Governor who orchestrated the poisoning of the water supply of Flint, Michigan due to his sheer incompetence and desire to "save money" will, of course, be linked to Schuette, since Schuette was nice enough to not press charges against anyone in the administration, and just appointed a special prosecutor... who just so happens to be one of the biggest donors to Rick Snyder's political campaigns. Schuette’s campaign was already going fabulously, with Schuette receiving an endorsement from future disgraced president and current disgrace Donald Trump, where wouldn't you know it, Trump misspelled Schuette's name. Schuette also could not escape the GOP Primary for his seat without his opponent in it, Brian Calley getting the FBI to follow through with a criminal investigation into whether or not Schuette had actually been having a “blind trust” oversee his businesses, and may have been using resources from his office to personally enrich his portfolio. While that accusation did not bring about a grand jury investigation, it only further damaged Schuette, an already flawed candidate. He was defeated by Gretchen Whitmer, who didn’t even break a sweat in doing so, and will now he is fading into political irrelevance. As such, we will set aside her profile at this time, and take a look at another wacky Republican today instead. (Current crazy/stupid scoreboard, is now 920-45, since this was established in July 2014.



    Thomas Gilmer
    Welcome to what is the 920th original profile here at “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day”, where we’ll be discussing Thomas Gilmer, a 2020 candidate for U.S. House of Representatives in Connecticut’s 5th Congressional District, who was, for the longest time, the favorite to win the GOP nomination for this seat. It was amazing that Gilmer held front-runner status, after all, he is yet another Qanon conspiracy theorist running for Congress as a Republican in the 2020 elections, as evidenced by the multiple times he linked to Qanon videos or posted on social media and included the Qanon hashtag.

    This still isn’t the real reason why we’re profiling Thomas Gilmer. That would have everything to do with the fact that on the eve of the GOP Primary, he was arrested for an assault he carried out in 2017 against a former girlfriend whom he choked, punched while she was on the ground, and then took off his T-shirt and started strangling her from behind with it. Shockingly, the video was almost never revealed to the public, even though the Connecticut GOP was aware it existed, but didn’t want anything to be done about the assault. It was only when rumors of its existence were beginning to gain steam that they opted to release it to the police, even if it would mean they would sabotage their own candidate.

    Thomas Gilmer will be in court over this, and even if he wasn’t busy avoiding prison, a video of you committing domestic assault is probably enough to end your career. At least, if his Republicans can find the courage to say anything about it.
    X-Books Forum Mutant Tracker/FAQ- Updated every Tuesday.

  14. #10844
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    4,766

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WestPhillyPunisher View Post
    When the hearings for Barrett take place, Democrats would be wise to avoid bringing her religious beliefs into play as that would piss off bible thumpers who've moved away from Trump but could return in force for him if it looks like she's being hammered for her faith.
    Honestly it would be wise for Democrats to do anything but go after

    1. Her judicial philosophy and implications

    2. The hypocrisy of Republicans

    A month before a Presidential election, Democrats do not want to be attacking a Catholic, nor an educated suburban white woman. That’s not a winning move. Unfortunately the seat is gone. The move is to hold Republicans accountable for it

  15. #10845
    Old school comic book fan WestPhillyPunisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    22,259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KNIGHT OF THE LAKE View Post
    Honestly it would be wise for Democrats to do anything but go after

    1. Her judicial philosophy and implications

    2. The hypocrisy of Republicans

    A month before a Presidential election, Democrats do not want to be attacking a Catholic, nor an educated suburban white woman. That’s not a winning move. Unfortunately the seat is gone. The move is to hold Republicans accountable for it
    Exactly that. Barrett could hop up on a table during the hearings and do an impromptu strip tease while singing Ice-T’s “Cop Killer” and Republicans will still confirm her. There’s no stopping that train, so yeah, make the GOP pay for that shotgun nomination come November.
    Last edited by WestPhillyPunisher; 09-27-2020 at 06:14 AM.
    Avatar: Here's to the late, great Steve Dillon. Best. Punisher. Artist. EVER!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •