All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[CaptainEurope]

A few more resignations this morning over at Boris' party, and what's worse is that, this being Wednesday, this is usually when Prime Minister's Questions airs.

I imagine that people have questions indeed.

[CSTowle]

Donald Trump has accelerated his campaign planning, hoping a White House bid will blunt a series of damaging revelations.

My guess is the whole "Lungegate" thing will be a long-lost memory in the sea of scandals by the time the '24 campaign rolls around. I still strongly believe he's going to run only for attention and fundraising, then make some lame excuse to bow out and spin it into some business venture (which will fail shortly thereafter, but not before making him millions of dollars).

States say abortion bans don't affect IVF. Providers and lawyers are worried anyway.

IVF is most common among white upper middle-class to wealthy folks and therefore will be absolutely safe and carved off from this whole Roe thing, because ideological consistency and principles are secondary to judgment against others (their perceived inferiors) and not themselves. Same reason Becky is going to be on a flight to a blue state as soon as she gets "in trouble".

An opinion piece that I'm still thinking on and haven't made up my mind if she is right or not.

The word 'Woman" hasn't disappeared from the vocabulary, people who are female and adults are referred to as Women or a Woman. I don't know of any group of any kind that objects to the use of the word Woman.

Don't know if this is actually a thing.

As many have already said, this is a TERF opinion piece. What hasn't been said, and should be pointed out, is that marginalization of women "on the far right and far left" is probably the narrative she'd like to push, but the truth is TERFs are mostly centrist Democrats who view the Trans movement as a black eye on their small-c conservative movement. These are the same largely white, largely upper middle-class to upper class women who originated the anti-vaccine movement long before Covid.

These are the folks who don't want to rock the boat/make radical moves, who would like those on the fringes who are bad for optics like the Trans movement (confuse and anger conservatives with their pesky request for acceptance and rights) to just quietly go away. It's your far left that's actually willing to stand up for all women, and speak up beyond platitudes and fundraisers for their rights. But nobody's the villain of their own story, and if they can craft a narrative that diminishes those working against their goals (or too strongly, where they share them) then that's a plus. Even if it's harmful to women in general.

This is a perfect example of how institutionalists enable fascism by prioritizing the preservation of institutions over the relief of human suffering. They aren’t motivated by a principled stance on either human rights or democracy b/c their concern is the preservation of power


https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/sta...6Z9l1ly7SU9zEQ

I understand the feeling that we should ignore institutions and laws to protect real human beings in the moment, but the reason I would side with those protecting institutions is because without those institutions we're left with no legal recourse when we're attacked or marginalized and no way to normalize or codify protections for marginalized groups against popular (especially religious) opinion.

It's like the idea of "throwing all the bums out". Sounds good in theory, in practice it would mean a lawless wasteland that would be controlled by the most aggressive and violent. It would be so much worse than the flawed 18th century patchwork we have now. The question is, how do we stop the people who clearly also don't believe in the system but are using it effectively to undermine and break it down as we speak? I don't have answer to that, but awareness and registering those sympathetic with your causes and encouraging them to vote (and volunteering or donating where able) would be a start.

Mets: on the Supreme Court and activism. I agree in an ideal world we'd have 9 middle-of-the-road law robots that are mainly concerned with crossing T's and dotting I's and calling it right down the middle, but in the real world where 2/3 of the court have a clear far-right ideology they are actively imposing on the country then I say that (despite the fact that they can do little but dissent at the moment) the 3 Liberal Justices absolutely should work towards doing the same for their ideology. If you can think of a way to establish a court like the one I described as ideal, I'm all ears.

[Tami]

My guess is the whole "Lungegate" thing will be a long-lost memory in the sea of scandals by the time the '24 campaign rolls around. I still strongly believe he's going to run only for attention and fundraising, then make some lame excuse to bow out and spin it into some business venture (which will fail shortly thereafter, but not before making him millions of dollars).



IVF is most common among white upper middle-class to wealthy folks and therefore will be absolutely safe and carved off from this whole Roe thing, because ideological consistency and principles are secondary to judgment against others (their perceived inferiors) and not themselves. Same reason Becky is going to be on a flight to a blue state as soon as she gets "in trouble".



As many have already said, this is a TERF opinion piece. What hasn't been said, and should be pointed out, is that marginalization of women "on the far right and far left" is probably the narrative she'd like to push, but the truth is TERFs are mostly centrist Democrats who view the Trans movement as a black eye on their small-c conservative movement. These are the same largely white, largely upper middle-class to upper class women who originated the anti-vaccine movement long before Covid.

These are the folks who don't want to rock the boat/make radical moves, who would like those on the fringes who are bad for optics like the Trans movement (confuse and anger conservatives with their pesky request for acceptance and rights) to just quietly go away. It's your far left that's actually willing to stand up for all women, and speak up beyond platitudes and fundraisers for their rights. But nobody's the villain of their own story, and if they can craft a narrative that diminishes those working against their goals (or too strongly, where they share them) then that's a plus. Even if it's harmful to women in general.



I understand the feeling that we should ignore institutions and laws to protect real human beings in the moment, but the reason I would side with those protecting institutions is because without those institutions we're left with no legal recourse when we're attacked or marginalized and no way to normalize or codify protections for marginalized groups against popular (especially religious) opinion.

It's like the idea of "throwing all the bums out". Sounds good in theory, in practice it would mean a lawless wasteland that would be controlled by the most aggressive and violent. It would be so much worse than the flawed 18th century patchwork we have now. The question is, how do we stop the people who clearly also don't believe in the system but are using it effectively to undermine and break it down as we speak? I don't have answer to that, but awareness and registering those sympathetic with your causes and encouraging them to vote (and volunteering or donating where able) would be a start.

Mets: on the Supreme Court and activism. I agree in an ideal world we'd have 9 middle-of-the-road law robots that are mainly concerned with crossing T's and dotting I's and calling it right down the middle, but in the real world where 2/3 of the court have a clear far-right ideology they are actively imposing on the country then I say that (despite the fact that they can do little but dissent at the moment) the 3 Liberal Justices absolutely should work towards doing the same for their ideology. If you can think of a way to establish a court like the one I described as ideal, I'm all ears.

TERF was something that I was not aware of until now. Somehow it doesn't surprise me that it exists, just surprised that it has gone under my radar for so long.

[worstblogever]

Isn't there a gay part of the Republican Party called the Log Cabin Republicans?

Gay marriage has been here for a bit, seems unlikely to me to be targeted because it hasn't proven to do anything people who were afraid of it said it would do. But Utah will be pushing for gay marriage to be gone, even still, I'd bet.

The Log Cabin Republicans showed up to the Texas Republican Party's convention last month and were told they weren't welcome, before their fellow Republicans went inside and wrote a party platform that sought to criminalize or outlaw several very routine things LGBTQ people do, including gay marriage.

The Log Cabin GOP are masochists for staying in the cult and being surprised that they cannot change the minds of fanatics.

Here's a video of representative (and WBE Alum) Debbie Lasko explaining how she would shoot her own grandchildren to protect her own grandchildren because guns because America.

https://twitter.com/RyanShead/status...85572331892736

She obviously misspoke but 'would kill/consign own children to death because America' does seem to be a Republican value these days.

I have been told by Republican posters that I "just profile every Republican one by one" and I don't. I point out people who are too extreme for office, of whom there are a lot. I think that being willing to shoot your own grandkids to prove your commitment to the 2nd Amendment qualifies as "too far".

[Matt Rat]

In total, we've had 27 tory cabinet resignations thus far today.

Boris is currently attending an inquiry. Sources say Boris can be expect even more to come if he does not agree to a request to resign

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...089dd60ac4e9cd

[worstblogever]

In 2015, 2016, as well as 2017, “Fanatical Republican Extremist of the Day” published profiles of Tony Shipley, a now former member of the Tennessee House of Representatives who won office in 2008 in a race that saw him use the underhanded tactic of running websites in his opponent's name to misrepresent his positions, and send out racist fliers that featured the head of that African American opponent mounted on a Blackbird. He also went off in 2009 and threatened to do something "like what happened in 1860" should gay marriage pass, and that if it did, "God drops California off into the sea". A few days after that rant, he complained about gay adoption and made mention of "Sodom and Gomorrah". A short time later, he submitted legislation to attempt to allow law enforcement to conduct warrantless searches if they had reason to "suspect terrorism" (4th Amendment much?) and when his colleagues tried asking what possible plots he thought might justify it, he pretended to be privy to top secret information. While in office, Shipley also voted to attempt to nullify the Affordable Care Act, to prevent the United Nations' Agenda 21 Environmental Treaty from being implemented, and several blatantly unconstitutional attempts to outlaw abortion, outright. In the 2016 elections, Shipley lost in the GOP Primary for that seat after finishing second in a four-candidate field with only 21% of the vote.



On this date in both 2018, 2019, 2020, as well as 2021, “Fanatical Republican Extremist of the Day” had its first profile of the sitting member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Ohio’s 8th District, Warren Davidson, who was first elected to office in June of 2016, shortly after former Speaker of the House John Boehner said, “F*** this s***,” and peaced out of of Congress. As part of the GOP gerrymandering of House districts after the 2010 elections, Boehner made sure that his own home district was galvanized to protect him from being booted by any Democratic challenger, making it the reddest district in all of Ohio. So when he retired, no less than fifteen…. Yes FIFTEEN Republicans battled it out like it was the goddamned Hunger Games to take his place in Ohio’s 6th for the remainder of his term, which Davidson then coasted to victory in the general special election to establish himself as the incumbent. A short time later, the vote was practically just done over again for the November election, this time with a SIXTEENTH Republican in the primary, and again breezed to victory against a Democrat, because of the +17 Republican lean in the Cook Partisan Voting Index. Almost immediately after arriving in Washington, D.C., Davidson issued what could be interpreted as a final “F*** you” to Boehner as he left office, immediately joining the Republican House Freedom Caucus that constantly was trying to bring about his downfall, and ultimately made Boehner resign in frustration to go work for the medical marijuana lobby.

To recap earlier posts... Warren Davidson seems to REALLY hate poor people.

This series of posts never hesitates to thank Republicans who served in our armed forces for that service. However, we still reserve the right to call out those veterans for bulls*** unrelated to it when necessary. And while we’ll salute Warren Davidson for his time as a U.S. Army Ranger without hesitation, we still think it’s truly f***ed up that he went to a gathering of veterans to gripe about “moochers” who were within the V.A. Medical system, and kick them out of it.

For someone well off like Davidson, maybe having your medical care paid for by the Department of Veteran’s Affairs isn’t a choice he has to make… but for every blue-collar veteran with injuries endured in the service without a six-figure salary to pay for physical or mental health treatments to be turned away? That… is some bulls***. And it’s frankly outrageous that someone would begin playing the “welfare queens” card on fellow service members like that. When people enlist, part of the agreement with the government that a service member gets is, after your service is over, the government helps you take care of your medical needs. That’s it. And there’s no whining about the cost, because men put their lives on the line.

Sorry if we got up on a soapbox there, but that’s a topic near and dear to FRED’s heart.

Anyway, that one-off comment wasn’t the only time that Rep. Davidson popped off about who actually “deserves” medical coverage. At his first town hall as a Congressman in early 2017, Davidson was hammered with questions about the GOP’s wishes to repeal the Affordable Care Act, even if there was no replacement for it. Thus, the following exchange occurred, resulting in gasps and boos from those assembled:

Constiuent: “My son did not have health insurance for four years, until the ACA when Medicaid was accepted. He didn’t have health insurance because he’s in the service industry. And that industry pays minimum wage and they keep their employees below a certain number of hours so that they cannot -- so that they don’t have to pay health insurance. So, many of the people that are on Medicaid are working, and they are the working poor. Under Trumpcare, one of the major ways to make health insurance affordable is to bring back catastrophic insurance, which is basically no insurance at all. Given that, given that preventative health care is the number one way to keep people healthy in our society, can you explain why my son and millions of others in his situation are not deserving of affordable, decent healthcare that has essential benefits so that he can stay healthy and continue working?”
Warren Davidson: “OK, I don’t know anything about your son, but as you described him, his skills are focused in an industry that doesn’t have the kind of options that you want him to have for health care. So, I don’t believe that these taxpayers here are entitled [sic] to give that to him. I believe he’s got the opportunity to go earn those health benefits.”

Yes, he pretty much just told a woman that her son deserved to die because he wasn’t “skilled” enough, and that he has to “earn” the right to keep living. Great work, Warren. Making the GOP look real sympathetic out there. And if you’re wondering if he just misspoke, no, he doubled down on his statement.

As Republican control of the House was lost in the 2018 Blue Wave election, in the last days of the 115TH Congress were winding down, Warren Davidson sponsored the “Buy a Brick, Build the Wall Act” that would have tried to secure funding for Donald Trump’s stupid f***ing xenophobic, and impractically useless idea for a physical wall on the U.S./Mexico border by allowing public donations made (not “Mexico will pay for it”), and even proposed outside of the bill that the United States could use “Wall Coins”, accepting donations via Bitcoin to be accepted to fund the project.

” “(The bill) lets the American people, or whomever should choose to donate – Mexicans or otherwise – to donate to the program. You could do with this sort of, like, crowdfunding site. Or you could even do blockchain, and you could have wall coins. But you could raise the money. And frankly, if we get it right at the Treasury, you could even accept Mexican pesos.”

That… is insane. In more ways than we can count. Including the complete improbability that there are private citizens in Mexico who might want to chip in.

Davidson is also a climate change denier, thinks Sharia Law is a threat to the United States and our Constitution (even though the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment would defend against it quite nicely, but hey, why not be an Islamophobe?), would like to redefine marriage as only between one man and one woman while allowing businesses the “religious freedom” to discriminate against the LGBTQ community, and is a supporter of Personhood.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

The Log Cabin Republicans showed up to the Texas Republican Party's convention last month and were told they weren't welcome, before their fellow Republicans went inside and wrote a party platform that sought to criminalize or outlaw several very routine things LGBTQ people do, including gay marriage.

The Log Cabin GOP are masochists for staying in the cult and being surprised that they cannot change the minds of fanatics.

Log Cabin Qpublicans, only in it for tax breaks discovered in Texas that they were in the Leopard Eating Peoples Faces Party….and guess what happened to them.

[worstblogever]

If you’re thinking the above two stories might be an indicator that Warren Davidson’s voting record has a mile-wide streak of being uncaring for his fellow Americans, you might be right:

• December 3rd, 2019: Warren Davidson is one of 71 Republicans who votes against a resolution to disallow Russia from re-entering the G7 and makes it the G8 until it leaves Ukraine.
• December 18th, 2019: Rep. Davidson ignores his Congressional duty to hold a president who has been proven to commit high crimes and misdemeanors accountable and votes against the impeachment of Donald Trump.
• May 15th, 2020: Davidson votes against the HEROES Act, to further support the healthcare industry and citizens affected by the Covid-19 pandemic.
• October 2nd, 2020: Warren Davidson votes against a resolution is presented in the House to condemn the Qanon conspiracy theory after its followers started to make death threats against Democratic Congressman Tom Malinowski.
• January 6th, 2021: Warren Davidson votes for the objection to the electoral college’s votes in the 2020 election, a failure to send any sort of message that he wasn’t intimidated or sympathetic to those who attacked the Capitol to attempt a violent coup.
• January 13th, 2021: Rep. Davidson votes against the second impeachment of Donald Trump, because the Republican Party no longer feels like they should be accountable for anything, including failed coups that result in the deaths of both their participants and police officers.
• February 4th, 2021: Warren Davidson votes to keep Marjorie Taylor Greene’s committee assignments, because he wouldn’t want her to be accountable for all the bigoted remarks and conspiracy theories she’s spread online (probably because she’s a kindred spirit).
• February 25th, 2021: Davidson votes against HR 5, the latest version of the Equality Act, that would provide workplace protections for LGBTQ Americans.
• March 3rd, 2021: Rep. Davidson votes against HR 1, a bill created to prevent the corruption of money in politics, and protect voter access to the ballot box.
• March 3rd, 2021: Warren Davidson votes against the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021.
• March 10th, 2021: Davidson votes against the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, because he feels people deserve to die in poverty during a pandemic.
• March 17th, 2021: Rep. Davidson votes against the re-authorization of the Violence Against Women Act, likely because they feel the 2nd Amendment remaining absolute is more important than preventing people with a history of domestic abuse from owning a firearm (which statistics show, makes them more likely to use those firearms against women in their lives).
• May 19th, 2021: Warren Davidson votes against HR 3233, the creation of a commission to investigate the Capitol Attack.
• May 20th, 2021: Davidson is one of 63 Republicans who vote against the Covid-19 Hate Crimes Act.
• November 5th, 2021: Warren Davidson votes against HR 3684, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
• January 12th, 2022: Davidson was widely criticized in January 2022 for comparing Covid-19 vaccine mandates to the Holocaust, without any rhyme or reason.
• March 31st, 2022: Davidson votes against HR 6833, the Affordable Insulin Now Act, which would limit the cost that drug companies could list insulin at to $35 and make sure no diabetic was priced out of surviving their condition. Warren Davidson would rather they be gouged by pharmaceutical giants and/or die.
• May 18th, 2022: Warren Davidson is one of 192 Republicans who vote against HR 7790, to create supplemental funding for infant formula (while claiming to be pro- life).
• May 18th, 2022: Rep. Davidson votes against HR 350, the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, because these days, a plank of the Republican Party is ostensibly domestic terror.
• May 19th, 2022: Davidson votes against HR 7688, a bill which would help prevent gas companies from gouging customers on prices.

Now, we’ve pointed out that Warren Davidson’s seat in the House was gerrymandered to be one of the safest in the entire state by his predecessor, former Speaker John Boehner, so unless he gets knocked out of office via a primary challenge , he isn’t going anywhere. However, in a sign that the GOP/GQP is still clearly at war with itself, he has been feuding publicly with Ohio Governor Mike DeWine, whose modest measures to help stop the spread of Covid-19 like mask mandates or closing public venues irked Davidson enough to call DeWine’s moves “Orwellian”.

In the wake of the Roe vs. Wade ruling, he was interviewed by CNN’s Pamela Brown, and was asked about the hypothetical situation of a child rape victim being denied a right to an abortion by snapping back, “YOU DON’T KNOW IF YOU WERE RAPED FOR TWO MONTHS?”

Again, presuming this child understands their situation, and showing all the empathy conservatives these days do.

And he will be this cruel, sitting in a protected, gerrymandered seat, until he gets booted in a primary, or his seat gets reconfigured in 2030.

[babyblob]

What a shock. Lindsey Graham will not comply with subpoena in Georgia election probe. His lawyers are claiming he cannot be compelled to testify before the grand jury became of limited immunity granted to members of the House and Senate.

Laws are for lesser beings. Not for public officials we vote to work for us.

[CaptainEurope]

What a shock. Lindsey Graham will not comply with subpoena in Georgia election probe. His lawyers are claiming he cannot be compelled to testify before the grand jury became of limited immunity granted to members of the House and Senate.

Laws are for lesser beings. Not for public officials we vote to work for us.

We'll see how that will work out for him.

Lindsey Graham may not be able to use Senate immunity to avoid Georgia subpoena in Trump case: legal experts

"Does that speech and debate clause protect him? Is that going to hold water?" the CNN host pressed.

"You know, I don't think so," Roiphe explained. "I think it's certainly an issue that will get litigated but I think at this point this is a criminal grand jury that is looking for evidence and I don't think that will protect him from giving this particular testimony."

"It's going to be a professor's dream come true because it's the kind of thing we talk about but it never happens," Honig chimed in. "The speech and debate clause essentially says a member of Congress cannot be questioned in some other body, meaning outside of Congress, but it has to relate to their legislative duties. Lindsey Graham is going to have to convince a court that his phone call to [Georgia Secretary of State] Brad Raffensperger made a couple of weeks before Trump's phone call was somehow within the scope of his legislative duties."

[Mister Mets]

The future the Republican party envisions for the country: even when they lose, they win.



https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...93c434e734fe1c

Wisconsin is the model they intend for the entire country. A legislature that represents solely a minority of voters with a partisan supreme court that reinforces their power grabs, stripping the executive of its ability to do anything when it's in opposite hands, empowering it when it is in their own. This kind of rule is incredibly unhealthy and iits indefensible. If we do not vote in massive numeers in 2022, they will be that much closer to enacting their agenda nation-wide. Defending this naked grab at partisan, unrepresentative minority rule, is what all the 'It's a REpublic NoT a DemoCraCY' bullshit is about.\

Let's look at what Democrats want to do.

They don't want legislatures in charge of redistricting because this favors Republicans. They were willing to do it when it benefitted themselves. Some infamous historical examples of gerrymanders included House Speaker Sam Rayburn having a rural district with 200,000 constituents while an urban congressman in the same state would have 900,000 constituents (despite the idea that each district should have roughly equivalent populations) and a Georgia legislator in charge of the 1980 redistricting objecting to drawing African-American districts (he used different language.)

https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/tim...?pageNumber=31

Martin O'Malley admit under oath that he gerrymandered when he was Governor of Maryland, although his framing of this is going to be part of wider messaging to suggest to Republicans that this is a bipartisan problem.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...umn/467349002/

The main alternative to legislators choosing their constituents (a sketchy proposition) is independent commissions. There was a curious scenario a few years ago when the Democrats were in favor of the idea when they were in the minority in the legislature, but after they took control of the Virginia legislature, the majority of them suddenly decided that they weren't interested in an independent commission any more. In the end, nine Democrats in the legislature joined the Republicans in making sure the legislature doesn't control redistricting, which was something the entire Democratic party had been campaigning on when the party was in the minority. A purple state legislature seems to be a good representative sample of a party at large, and here under twenty percent of elected Democrats passed the morality test.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/28/o...ering-law.html

Population distribution favors Republicans (progressives tend to be packed into places that already have enough votes for a liberal legislator or into left-wing enclaves in red districts like college towns in Nebraska), so if independent commissions were told to make compact borders which respect district boundaries, which is generally the expectation, it would give Republicans a slight edge. Meanwhile, Republicans also have an existing edge in the Senate since Democrats are the party of cities and a state with several cities that have a population greater than Wyoming would have the same number of Senators as Wyoming.

For Democrats, the ideal scenario is one where they can manipulate a commission. They can't get the votes through a normal process, so they need to get in through the back door. And they can't openly say that they want the independent commission to carve up boundaries in a way that offsets the natural Republican advantage from standard population distribution, because they'd rather not openly debate this.

Then they'll get to make arguments about things that weren't supposed to have an impact in elections. They'll point to the overall popular vote outcomes in state legislative races which are going to be skewed by different strategies about where to run campaigns. Democrats are more likely to run candidates who have no shot of winning. In addition, state laws on respecting existing boundaries and federal laws on allowing for majority-minority districts help out Republicans.

After California went into an independent redistricting commission, Democrats successful manipulated it by lying about their motives while pretending to be community groups making recommendations about district lines.

In New Jersey, there was something sketchy when the swing vote on the independent redistricting board made decisions based on recommendations of an algorithm created by Samuel Wang, Professor of Political Science in Princeton. The problem is that the algorithm is considered proprietary information, so we don't know what the standard is. I don't recall anyone saying in advance that the plan is to have independent redistricting commissions influenced by information that people on the commissions, and the voters do not have access to.

For years I've been saying that important question on gerrymandering is to figure out what the alternative should be; if there's an independent commission, what standard should they be held to? This is something that Democrats don't want to talk about, because for most of them, this isn't about right or wrong, but about maximizing partisan advantage.

[Jack Dracula]

Here's a video of representative (and WBE Alum) Debbie Lasko explaining how she would shoot her own grandchildren to protect her own grandchildren because guns because America.

https://twitter.com/RyanShead/status...85572331892736

She obviously misspoke but 'would kill/consign own children to death because America' does seem to be a Republican value these days.

Good lord, how can this woman be running unopposed?

[Jack Dracula]

The future the Republican party envisions for the country: even when they lose, they win.



https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...93c434e734fe1c

Wisconsin is the model they intend for the entire country. A legislature that represents solely a minority of voters with a partisan supreme court that reinforces their power grabs, stripping the executive of its ability to do anything when it's in opposite hands, empowering it when it is in their own. This kind of rule is incredibly unhealthy and iits indefensible. If we do not vote in massive numeers in 2022, they will be that much closer to enacting their agenda nation-wide. Defending this naked grab at partisan, unrepresentative minority rule, is what all the 'It's a REpublic NoT a DemoCraCY' bullshit is about.\

When the inevitable demonstrations and protests occur the “official” and unofficial militia groups in every state will be there with their guns to “protect freedom”.

[Kirby101]

Mets has slung some hooey before, but man is that a giant steaming load. I guess the only way he can stay a Republican is to make himself believe both Parties are the same and the GOP aren't anti-democratic fascists.

[Jack Dracula]

The Log Cabin Republicans showed up to the Texas Republican Party's convention last month and were told they weren't welcome, before their fellow Republicans went inside and wrote a party platform that sought to criminalize or outlaw several very routine things LGBTQ people do, including gay marriage.

The Log Cabin GOP are masochists for staying in the cult and being surprised that they cannot change the minds of fanatics.



I have been told by Republican posters that I "just profile every Republican one by one" and I don't. I point out people who are too extreme for office, of whom there are a lot. I think that being willing to shoot your own grandkids to prove your commitment to the 2nd Amendment qualifies as "too far".

Frankly, I want the Log Cabin Republicans to exist as an entity along with any other nonconforming voice within their party. The sane conservatives leaving instead of consolidating is what enabled the current situation.