Is there any hope for the R Party? (the quiet part out loud)

[Yoused]

From what we have seen, no.

However, some Republicans are not onboard with the apparent agenda,

New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu (R), …told the Washington Examiner … that before he ultimately made the decision not to run against Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH), he had spoken to most of the members of the Senate GOP to learn more about the job. The senators’ descriptions apparently amounted to “LOL what job?”

“They were all, for the most part, content with the speed at which they weren’t doing anything,” Sununu told the Examiner. “OK, so I’m just going to be a roadblock for two years. That’s not what I do.”

Sununu said he was “bothered” (by) the fact that they apparently couldn’t explain why, if the current goal is to obstruct until the GOP potentially wins the White House in 2024, they didn’t do anything even when they did have the White House during Trump’s term. “I said, ‘OK, so if we’re going to get stuff done if we win the White House back, why didn’t you do it in 2017 and 2018?’” Sununu recounted.

“Crickets. Yeah, crickets,” he said of the senators’ response. “They had no answer.”​

Sununu is not a name that has positive vibes for me, but at least he has a granule of character. It seems as though these Rs who are not utter slime just need to step away from the Party and let it die.

 

[SuperMatt]

From what we have seen, no.

However, some Republicans are not onboard with the apparent agenda,

New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu (R), …told the Washington Examiner … that before he ultimately made the decision not to run against Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH), he had spoken to most of the members of the Senate GOP to learn more about the job. The senators’ descriptions apparently amounted to “LOL what job?”​

​

“They were all, for the most part, content with the speed at which they weren’t doing anything,” Sununu told the Examiner. “OK, so I’m just going to be a roadblock for two years. That’s not what I do.”​

​

Sununu said he was “bothered” (by) the fact that they apparently couldn’t explain why, if the current goal is to obstruct until the GOP potentially wins the White House in 2024, they didn’t do anything even when they did have the White House during Trump’s term. “I said, ‘OK, so if we’re going to get stuff done if we win the White House back, why didn’t you do it in 2017 and 2018?’” Sununu recounted.​

​

“Crickets. Yeah, crickets,” he said of the senators’ response. “They had no answer.”​

Sununu is not a name that has positive vibes for me, but at least he has a granule of character. It seems as though these Rs who are not utter slime just need to step away from the Party and let it die.

Biden read this during his speech yesterday.

If you can find video of yesterday’s speech, it’s worth a watch. I saw it live and I was impressed. He is clearly knowledgeable and thoughtful about the issues facing America. What a wonderful change from the last President.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

If/when Democrats lose it will be to the party that has zero platform and no solutions. Wrap your head around that.

 

[lizkat]

If/when Democrats lose it will be to the party that has zero platform and no solutions. Wrap your head around that.

Well.,, so much winning became both a GOP mission and then its primary achievement. It's a really tight loop...

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Well.,, so much winning became both a GOP mission and then its primary achievement. It's a really tight loop...

Like I’ve said before, there’s little difference between a party that promises nothing and delivers on that promise, and a party that makes promises but also does nothing. But if we’re going to be honest, it’s reasonable to think the party that doesn’t keep its promises is the bigger disappointment.

And to be somewhat fair to the swinging pendulum voters, it’s not like they are given a plethora of realistic alternatives. If you’re not happy with the performance of a politician your only real recourse is to boot them out of office via a vote for the other party member….or just don’t vote at all, either way, same end result.

 

[SuperMatt]

Like I’ve said before, there’s little difference between a party that promises nothing and delivers on that promise, and a party that makes promises but also does nothing. But if we’re going to be honest, it’s reasonable to think the party that doesn’t keep its promises is the bigger disappointment.

And to be somewhat fair to the swinging pendulum voters, it’s not like they are given a plethora of realistic alternatives. If you’re not happy with the performance of a politician your only real recourse is to boot them out of office via a vote for the other party member….or just don’t vote at all, either way, same end result.

Which is why it would actually be a huge benefit to the Democrats to kill the filibuster. They could pass highly popular legislation, and when the GOP gets power, they can flail around and never pass anything. But with the filibuster, it’s 100% gridlock in Congress... neither party doing anything. One by design, one by failure to be more assertive and call the others’ bluff.

 

[JayMysteri0]

I think the difference as my SO would tell me, is in hope.

That's what this vote on voting rights / filibuster showed us all. One party even though they always previously unanimously for voting rights along with conservative 'r' presidents. Now, as a means to seek to maintain power consistently, they've tossed their concern for ALL Americans. Just to insure that their core dwindling base from a time that America WAS once great can have minority rule. While another party fully aware they were going to fail because of two members. Two members who showed themselves by being more worried about a Jim Crow era rule, over those Americans who've been affected since Jim Crow. Yes, that party failed again, but that also means they tried again.

And again.

That, no matter how futile a gesture, demonstrates hope. Hope that after coming up with a plan that even one of the two dems who sided with repubs came up & turned on ( again ), may work. At least that party is trying, and continues to try. The other party has settled for doing nothing governance wise, unless it's to insure a profit for someone who will spend part of that profit on them.

One party showed their interests are solely about party over people. Even the most supposedly not extremist or partisan like Romney, like Collins, like Cheney, had no interest in speaking up for voting rights. Instead the time before was spent bull shitting everyone with a MLK phrase they memorized on the way to work earlier. That's a party that shows there is no hope for anyone that isn't White like them. Isn't as well off as them. That isn't them.

For a party that's memorized the line about not judging by color, but by their character, they have no problem showing us all their true character.

 

[lizkat]

Like I’ve said before, there’s little difference between a party that promises nothing and delivers on that promise, and a party that makes promises but also does nothing. But if we’re going to be honest, it’s reasonable to think the party that doesn’t keep its promises is the bigger disappointment.

And to be somewhat fair to the swinging pendulum voters, it’s not like they are given a plethora of realistic alternatives. If you’re not happy with the performance of a politician your only real recourse is to boot them out of office via a vote for the other party member….or just don’t vote at all, either way, same end result.

Maybe you've forgotten a few things along the way? It's easy for that to happen when a succeeding administration makes efforts (and sometimes succeeds) in trying to undo the work of a former president from the other party.

Be that as it may, there are things that the Obama administration (and sometimes in concert with efforts by the outgoing Bush '43) did in aid of recovery from the global financial crash that were an expenditure of not only Treasury funds but political capital. The latter can take way more courage than the former sometimes, and the Dems are ofen enough way better at it on behalf of ordinary Americans than are the Rs with their godblasted trickle-down theories on how to, uh... hang onto what they have?

Financial recovery and reform: not all of the Dodd-Frank stipulations have been removed or weakened, despite the Rs' efforts to do so. And the passing of the $790B recovery act in 2009 was a heavy lift that paid off big time in added jobs and rapid recovery from the flatlined global economy of 2008. It included the beginnings of what is now a burgeoning effort to focus energy-related sectors of the economy more on renewables and tech to move and store those new forms.​

Affordable Care Act. OK it has warts galore. But Americans want it fixed, not repealed and made that clear to Congress despite the Rs trying to repeal it about 80 times. This was and is a huge deal. A foot in the damn door, FINALLY. If there is someplace where Dem saints and sinners have a rogues' gallery in heaven, the portraits of Reid and Pelosi will be there.They made as many enemies as collected friends en route to getting that bill passed. But they forged ahead anyway.​

​

Consumer-friendly banking regulations regarding credit cards: remember the days when a bank could just jack up the rate and you found that out when opening your next statement and maybe some little slip of paper fell out with a notice drawing your attention to it? Gone along various w/ exorbitant fees as of 2009, with the Credit Card Reform and Disclosure act.​

​

Food Safety Modernization Act of 2011. More domestic inspections, direct recalls, inspection of imported foreign foods.​

​

Broadband - initialized new push for expansion into low-income rural areas by moving $8 billion out of landline subsidies to the carriers, recognizing advent of more prevalent cellphone usage.​

​

Claims Resolution Act, 2009 - over $5 billion for settlements to native American and Black farmers cheated by government handling of loans and outright exploitation of natural resource royalties.​

I could go on but anyone can look it up. It pays to do that now and then, when becoming despondent over the fact that the Republican Party isn't even "the party of NO" any more, rather figures it's time to cheat their way back into power and become the one-party front for some strongman yet to emerge from the debacle that is the cult of Donald Trump.

What a hill for a once principled party to die on, eh? Unfortunately they're trying to take the whole country down with them... but the Dems should not buy into the idea that there are no actual differences between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to policies and attempts to implement them.

It's true that governance tends to run to "business as usual" no matter whins elections, but that's only true with big ticket legislative efforts, where industry lobbies sink hundreds of millions of dollars into resisting anything that cuts into profit margins. Nonetheless, every single day there are improvements being angled for and put into practice by Democrats AND by Republicans who still understand that there's more community than disunity out there among plain Americans. In a community of real people (distinct from the bubbles of DC politics and social media), a policy of obstruction is not a vote getter. People want stuff done. It's why the infrastructure bill passed, whittled down though it was.

So... there's only so far that the Republicans can go with their "party of NO" routine, and they know it: it's the one thing that has stayed their hand somewhat during their voter-suppressive legislation efforts and gerrymandering use of map-redraws. They understand that the worst thing they can do is stand out so starkly as obstructive against a Democratic adminstration that they cause a massive turnout of Dems in the midterms... since the Rs are unsure how their voter suppression may affect their own piece of the electorate.

The really quiet part out loud is nobody really knows what traditional conservatives will do in the upcoming elections.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Maybe you've forgotten a few things along the way? It's easy for that to happen when a succeeding administration makes efforts (and sometimes succeeds) in trying to undo the work of a former president from the other party.

Be that as it may, there are things that the Obama administration (and sometimes in concert with efforts by the outgoing Bush '43) did in aid of recovery from the global financial crash that were an expenditure of not only Treasury funds but political capital. The latter can take way more courage than the former sometimes, and the Dems are ofen enough way better at it on behalf of ordinary Americans than are the Rs with their godblasted trickle-down theories on how to, uh... hang onto what they have?

Financial recovery and reform: not all of the Dodd-Frank stipulations have been removed or weakened, despite the Rs' efforts to do so. And the passing of the $790B recovery act in 2009 was a heavy lift that paid off big time in added jobs and rapid recovery from the flatlined global economy of 2008. It included the beginnings of what is now a burgeoning effort to focus energy-related sectors of the economy more on renewables and tech to move and store those new forms.​

Affordable Care Act. OK it has warts galore. But Americans want it fixed, not repealed and made that clear to Congress despite the Rs trying to repeal it about 80 times. This was and is a huge deal. A foot in the damn door, FINALLY. If there is someplace where Dem saints and sinners have a rogues' gallery in heaven, the portraits of Reid and Pelosi will be there.They made as many enemies as collected friends en route to getting that bill passed. But they forged ahead anyway.​

​

Consumer-friendly banking regulations regarding credit cards: remember the days when a bank could just jack up the rate and you found that out when opening your next statement and maybe some little slip of paper fell out with a notice drawing your attention to it? Gone along various w/ exorbitant fees as of 2009, with the Credit Card Reform and Disclosure act.​

​

Food Safety Modernization Act of 2011. More domestic inspections, direct recalls, inspection of imported foreign foods.​

​

Broadband - initialized new push for expansion into low-income rural areas by moving $8 billion out of landline subsidies to the carriers, recognizing advent of more prevalent cellphone usage.​

​

Claims Resolution Act, 2009 - over $5 billion for settlements to native American and Black farmers cheated by government handling of loans and outright exploitation of natural resource royalties.​

I could go on but anyone can look it up. It pays to do that now and then, when becoming despondent over the fact that the Republican Party isn't even "the party of NO" any more, rather figures it's time to cheat their way back into power and become the one-party front for some strongman yet to emerge from the debacle that is the cult of Donald Trump.

What a hill for a once principled party to die on, eh? Unfortunately they're trying to take the whole country down with them... but the Dems should not buy into the idea that there are no actual differences between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to policies and attempts to implement them.

It's true that governance tends to run to "business as usual" no matter whins elections, but that's only true with big ticket legislative efforts, where industry lobbies sink hundreds of millions of dollars into resisting anything that cuts into profit margins. Nonetheless, every single day there are improvements being angled for and put into practice by Democrats AND by Republicans who still understand that there's more community than disunity out there among plain Americans. In a community of real people (distinct from the bubbles of DC politics and social media), a policy of obstruction is not a vote getter. People want stuff done. It's why the infrastructure bill passed, whittled down though it was.

So... there's only so far that the Republicans can go with their "party of NO" routine, and they know it: it's the one thing that has stayed their hand somewhat during their voter-suppressive legislation efforts and gerrymandering use of map-redraws. They understand that the worst thing they can do is stand out so starkly as obstructive against a Democratic adminstration that they cause a massive turnout of Dems in the midterms... since the Rs are unsure how their voter suppression may affect their own piece of the electorate.

The really quiet part out loud is nobody really knows what traditional conservatives will do in the upcoming elections.

By most accounts, including by Obama himself, what he got through was nowhere near enough. Yes, Republicans were a big part of the reason, but at the end of the day most voters aren't going to care how or why or celebrate extreme shortcomings. It's the lazy, but easily answered question "Are you better off than you were before?" Trump winning in 2016, even if by dubious means, says a lot of people were not.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Which is why it would actually be a huge benefit to the Democrats to kill the filibuster. They could pass highly popular legislation, and when the GOP gets power, they can flail around and never pass anything. But with the filibuster, it’s 100% gridlock in Congress... neither party doing anything. One by design, one by failure to be more assertive and call the others’ bluff.

I don't see the filibuster getting killed or voting rights passing (we know why). As I said in another post, I think their best option right now is to break up the BBB and put each popular initiative up for a recorded vote. It will cause complete chaos within the Republican party and put on record who wants to screw the American people on what.

Here's another easy win Democrats could put out there, banning congress members from trading stocks while in office. Last I heard that has something like 75%+ approval rating amongst voters regardless of political leanings. There's zero defense of people in Congress trading stocks as it's a massive corruption conflict of interest by default.

 

[lizkat]

By most accounts, including by Obama himself, what he got through was nowhere near enough. Yes, Republicans were a big part of the reason, but at the end of the day most voters aren't going to care how or why or celebrate extreme shortcomings. It's the lazy, but easily answered question "Are you better off than you were before?" Trump winning in 2016, even if by dubious means, says a lot of people were not.

The media need to help people formulate their own answer to the question "are you better off than before?" instead of focusing on the horse race of whether the R or the D candidate is ahead in "the polls".

We all have busy lives and are distracted by the information highway's "fire hose" provision of more data than anyone can sort out or remember. When it comes time for voters to suffer through the season of campaign ads though, media could be way more helpful in reviewing the ups and downs of both the challengers' and incumbents' achievements or failures and some broader context of those outcomes. But media outlets get lazy and it's way cheaper just to fish through the PR flacks' latest offerings from the pols themselves, to the end that we read recycled talking points and background material for ad videos... in the "news papers"...

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

The media need to help people formulate their own answer to the question "are you better off than before?" instead of focusing on the horse race of whether the R or the D candidate is ahead in "the polls".

We all have busy lives and are distracted by the information highway's "fire hose" provision of more data than anyone can sort out or remember. When it comes time for voters to suffer through the season of campaign ads though, media could be way more helpful in reviewing the ups and downs of both the challengers' and incumbents' achievements or failures and some broader context of those outcomes. But media outlets get lazy and it's way cheaper just to fish through the PR flacks' latest offerings from the pols themselves, to the end that we read recycled talking points and background material for ad videos... in the "news papers"...

Here's something super easy that the media could do. Every time a politician or candidate is being interviewed throw up a graphic of all the donors and personal investments that are benefiting from the angle they are selling. But that's just rude. Unlike, fucking over the American people wholesale. That's what polite society does and shall not be mentioned.

 

[User.168]

.

 

[SuperMatt]

Right, or wrong, you can bet that this what the average American is thinking a lot about:

Analysis: 'It's getting worse every time': Inflation concerns could spell trouble for Democrats — CNN Politics

Outside a Costco, Laura Godinez lifts meat, toothpaste, coffee, bottled water and bulk supplies of DayQuil from her cart — just the staples in a pandemic-era weekly shopping trip that is now often missing extras that might bust the family budget, like cookies and snacks.

apple.news

another gem:



That same message is getting amplified by the Rs and their propaganda machines. I studied mathematics and not micro or macro economics, but I am pretty sure that’s not how things work. It won’t matter because the dems are getting the blame for doing something and for doing nothing.

Fox propaganda and right-wing Facebook networks are highly effective. Republicans on social media, and even on forums like this one, repeat the latest talking points, regardless of whether they are true or not. And those who actually look deeper and think about things are labeled as “elitist.”

If Facebook and Fox shut down tomorrow, the Republicans wouldn’t know what to think about anything. They might have to generate an original thought for the first time in decades.

 

[lizkat]

They're not actually Republicans. I don't know what they are, past pseudo-populist authoritarian followers...

 

[Yoused]

They're not actually Republicans. I don't know what they are

republiopaths

 

[User.168]

.