The Republican Agenda 2021 and Forward

Republicans have hate and white grievance as an issue, and not much else. They’re literally trying to go back 50 years by invading the womb and trying to cut back the voting power of not just minorities, but anyone who disagrees with them and their dumb cult leader.

Meanwhile, you have stereotypes of sleazy criminals like Roger Stone and Steve Bannon running around, breaking the law and scheming, going totally free as pseudo-celebs within the party. And nobody of note in the GOP says anything.

And they’re winning.
 
Tis the season for Christmas whining to begin, so...
FGGN-dVVEAEKwYB
 


The sad part is, this redneck thinks he is just so, so smart by his line of questioning. Just xenophobic and racist, and he’s pretty comfortable because he’s a senator from a deep red state. Some people have to slave for minimum wage and these old racist bastards collect a taxpayer funded lavish lifestyle just by walking around being assholes.
 

Hasan is stretching the truth. Her nomination was dead because some "moderate" dems (lead by Virginia's Warner & Montana's Tester) didn't like her. Progressives wanted someone else entirely. And the Dem Chair of the Banking Committee, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, was a vocal supporter that specifically called out the personal attacks. In a 50-50 Senate that has unanimous GOP opposition, you can't have a single Dem not on board for a nominee.
 
This f- wit!

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1468772702940979203/


https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1468778074615554054/

Meanwhile, this is happening elsewhere

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1468965335944466448/
 
As far as Republican agendas and Cawthorn are concerned, who knows what that guy was up to, he's already said from the beginning that he regards his House seat as a platform for communications, so apparently not so much a representation of his constituents' interests.

Leaving that individual Georgian's take on things aside, the really shocking news today about Republican Agenda is that the state of Georgia has reached down into county level election administration and found ways to purge blacks from administrative slots as well as to alter voting rules in ways that tend to discriminate against people of color, e.g. voting on Sunday has been discontinued as an option in certain precincts.

Behold now the spooling out of the reprehensible legacy of the Roberts Court. The gutting by SCOTUS of certain provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is what has made this sort of tinkering possible. The federal oversight of changes in voting rules in certain states, of which Georgia is one, would never have permitted these changes.


Now a faction of three white Republicans controlled the board – thanks to a bill passed by the Republican-led Georgia legislature earlier this year. The Spalding board’s new chairman has endorsed former president Donald Trump’s false stolen-election claims on social media.

The panel in Spalding, a rural patch south of Atlanta, is one of six county boards that Republicans have quietly reorganized in recent months through similar county-specific state legislation. The changes expanded the party’s power over choosing members of local election boards ahead of the crucial midterm Congressional elections in November 2022.


The unusual rash of restructurings follows the state's passage of Senate Bill 202, which restricted ballot access statewide and allowed the Republican-controlled State Election Board to assume control of county boards it deems underperforming. The board immediately launched a performance review of the Democratic-leaning Fulton County board, which oversees part of Atlanta.

The Georgia restructurings are part of a national Republican effort to expand control over election administration in the wake of Trump’s false voter-fraud claims. Republican-led states such as Florida, Texas and Arizona have enacted new curbs on voter access this year. Backers of Trump’s false stolen-election claims are running campaigns for secretary of state - the top election official - in battleground states. read more And some Republicans in Wisconsin are seeking to eliminate the state’s bipartisan election commission and threatening its members with prosecution.
 
As far as Republican agendas and Cawthorn are concerned, who knows what that guy was up to, he's already said from the beginning that he regards his House seat as a platform for communications, so apparently not so much a representation of his constituents' interests.

Leaving that individual Georgian's take on things aside, the really shocking news today about Republican Agenda is that the state of Georgia has reached down into county level election administration and found ways to purge blacks from administrative slots as well as to alter voting rules in ways that tend to discriminate against people of color, e.g. voting on Sunday has been discontinued as an option in certain precincts.

Behold now the spooling out of the reprehensible legacy of the Roberts Court. The gutting by SCOTUS of certain provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is what has made this sort of tinkering possible. The federal oversight of changes in voting rules in certain states, of which Georgia is one, would never have permitted these changes.

Get ready for 100% election victories, coming soon to a state near you!


If they control all voting boards, they can just rubber-stamp whoever they want to win.

John Roberts’ 2013 speech about how America had changed was one of the dumbest ones ever made by a Supreme Court justice.

It was in the South that slavery was upheld by law until uprooted by the Civil War, that the reign of Jim Crow denied African-Americans the most basic freedoms, and that state and local governments worked tirelessly to disenfranchise citizens on the basis of race. The Court invoked that history—rightly so—in sustaining the disparate coverage of the Voting Rights Act in 1966. See Katzenbach, supra, at 308 (“The constitutional propriety of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 must be judged with reference to the historical experience which it reflects.”).

But history did not end in 1965. By the time the Act was reauthorized in 2006, there had been 40 more years of it. In assessing the “current need[]” for a preclearance system that treats States differently from one another today, that history cannot be ignored. During that time, largely because of the Voting Rights Act, voting tests were abolished, disparities in voter registration and turnout due to race were erased, and African-Americans attained political office in record numbers. And yet the coverage formula that Congress reauthorized in 2006 ignores these developments, keeping the focus on decades-old data relevant to decades-old problems, rather than current data reflecting current needs.
Was he stupid enough to believe what he said? Or does he want to remove voting rights from black people? I don’t think Roberts is stupid, so logic tells me it is the latter.
 
Last edited:
Get ready for 100% election victories, coming soon to a state near you!


If they control all voting boards, they can just rubber-stamp whoever they want to win.

That's right.... as forecast by Ronna McDaniel at the GOP's winter meeting when she said they wouldn't "tolerate" an election like the one just experienced in November of 2020. Silly us if we thought that was a bunch of blather.

John Roberts’ 2013 speech about how America had changed was one of the dumbest ones ever made by a Supreme Court justice.

It was in the South that slavery was upheld by law until uprooted by the Civil War, that the reign of Jim Crow denied African-Americans the most basic freedoms, and that state and local governments worked tirelessly to disenfranchise citizens on the basis of race. The Court invoked that history—rightly so—in sustaining the disparate coverage of the Voting Rights Act in 1966. See Katzenbach, supra, at 308 (“The constitutional propriety of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 must be judged with reference to the historical experience which it reflects.”).

But history did not end in 1965. By the time the Act was reauthorized in 2006, there had been 40 more years of it. In assessing the “current need[]” for a preclearance system that treats States differently from one another today, that history cannot be ignored. During that time, largely because of the Voting Rights Act, voting tests were abolished, disparities in voter registration and turnout due to race were erased, and African-Americans attained political office in record numbers. And yet the coverage formula that Congress reauthorized in 2006 ignores these developments, keeping the focus on decades-old data relevant to decades-old problems, rather than current data reflecting current needs.

Was he stupid enough to believe what he said? Or does he want to remove voting rights from black people? I don’t think Roberts is stupid, so logic tells me it is the latter.

What possibly mattered more at the time of John Roberts' speech was that certain Republicans who heard it were like "holy sh^t he's right, we need to do something before it's too late".

So that's what they've been doing and especially since the VRA restrictions on certain states' voting rule changes were lifted.

The question now, and leaving aside for a moment a best guess about Roberts' personal views, is whether he, while wearing his Chief Justice hat, will like his court to take the next opportunity that the Democrats offer-- by way of some lawsuit that lands at his doorstep-- to revisit his premature conclusion and reconsider things in light of the blatant examples Georgia has provided: that there remains a reason for the feds to oversee voting rules changes in the states enumerated in that provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Hell if I were Roberts I'd have bought a burner phone, called up Schumer and McConnell and said "you guys need to fix this."

I do personally fault Roberts for being politically naive enough --or else for just winkin'n'blinkin'-- at the entirely predictable consequence of opening a door for white supremacists in all those VRA-enumerated states (and in others, particularly in the Trump era), to start whacking away again at the voting rights of people who don't look and think just like they do. I'd have thought he'd think more deeply about possible consequences to his court's legacy, if not for the rulings' probable impact on the potential electorate.

Allowing that 1965 act to be gutted in that particular way does tell us something very concrete about how reactionary the USA's "conservative" wing has become, even since Roberts was appointed by Bush 43 (who seems more moderate in retrospect with each passing year, although he was definitely a conservative politician). I'm not at all sure Bush would think taking those provisions out of the VRA was warranted.

On the other hand we shouldn't have been shocked to see Roberts accede to diminution of federal oversight of rules involving elections, oversight of which generally resides with the states. Before his confirmation to the bench he never made a secret of his skepticism of the need for federal laws about matters that he felt states could constitutionally resolve. Still it was always clear the certain provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 came about because of a constitutional deprivation of specific American rights in specific states, and Roberts knows that too. I'm not keeping a case-by-case scorecard on the guy but the gutting of the VRA will always stand out to me as a disappointment and at least somewhat surprising.
 
Last edited:
Also, this is the side that is rabidly obsessed about others needing the Lord & others being pedophiles...

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1469001751986589701/

Connecting the similar dots you have to conclude that the people yelling the loudest about the stolen election are mad because their pre-voting rigging efforts to steal the election were unsuccessful. If we audited all the votes in the country I wouldn’t be shocked to find out Biden won by a landslide. I guess at least now they are fine tuning that rigging in plain sight….while the Democrat Congress sits on their hands and yells “but bipartisanship!”

It’s like both parties are taking turns making the country conclude they are toast but then somehow rise from the ashes as something worse.

Nobody should be surprised if the party of bullies takes over everything. The nice guy winning only happens in movies.
 
Rules without consequences are about as useless as a crocheted condom. Unless this guy faces any consequences, then what’s the point? These people break rules all the time, and then cry “witch hunt” or “political games” when anyone tries to hold them accountable.
 
Rules without consequences are about as useless as a crocheted condom. Unless this guy faces any consequences, then what’s the point? These people break rules all the time, and then cry “witch hunt” or “political games” when anyone tries to hold them accountable.

Also even just verbally disapproving of behavior is shortly followed by a barrage of death threats. I guess we're just going to let that slide too. No consequences for anybody on the right.
 
Rules without consequences are about as useless as a crocheted condom. Unless this guy faces any consequences, then what’s the point? These people break rules all the time, and then cry “witch hunt” or “political games” when anyone tries to hold them accountable.

There were at least 10 GOP congressmen who received death threats after voting to impeach Trump. Imagine then how some ordinary Republican elections administrator feels coming out of a county office building after enforcing --to someone's social-media-voiced and specific dissatisfaction-- a local rule about issuance of absentee ballots or who can watch the counting from inside the offices or whatever.

It's one thing to be rude and very much another to threaten people just doing their jobs. People need to get a grip. But they're not doing that, they're doubling down, so law enforcement needs to charge people who think they can do stuff like make death threats or commit actual violence over a political disappointment. They can't decry demonstrations that end up violent and at the same time excuse their own individual violence against someone whose legitimate political behavior annoys them.

Rules without consequences are about as useless as a crocheted condom. Unless this guy faces any consequences, then what’s the point? These people break rules all the time, and then cry “witch hunt” or “political games” when anyone tries to hold them accountable.

As for this scofflaw Cawthorn and his like-minded buddies... more is expected from public servants. So their choice to ignore security regulations in the Capitol sets a terrible example that needs a swift response from the House administrators of such matters. I don't think there's political discretion involved here, but I could be wrong. Maybe there are just monetary consequences, as there are fines for ignoring metal detectors, and so these showoffs get repaid by deep pocketed supporters any dough they lose when they have to shell out for violations.

Anyway they are starting to remind me of two-year-olds who think "No means No" only when they say it.
 
That is fiction. A few possible Dem members are dwarfed by the vast majority of Dems in Congress.

Maybe, but Dems still somehow seem intimidated by the prospect of ending up with no loaf at all, so they give half away in crumbs sometimes by withdrawing amendments (or allowing GOP ones onto the floor to begin with). Then we call whatever is left a good bipartisan effort. With luck and skill, something like the ACA totters off the field almost able to stand up to another bashing in the Senate.

We whine about GOP hardball and then when it's our game, we come out armed with badminton gear... and then the Rs whine that the grass is too tall, and finallly we bring out our own weed whacker and cut whatever they're pointing at. WTF?!

That BS yesterday about taking some teeth out of the military justice reform section, where did that come from? Right around the time someone also said oh and by the way the Senate will never pass that OR that stipulation about women registering with Selective Service. Boom, both of those took a hike right before the vote.

Heck, we haven't drafted anyone, anyone since the 70s anyway and women are already serving in combat in the military. We just split from what's supposedly our last big ground war scenario and are shifting to cyberdefense if you want to believe the posters for 2022 defense budgets although 768B sounds like could shuffle a whole lotta bits and bytes.

But anyway now the Rs are suddenly in a huff about drafting women? Into what, an office with some 65" monitors and nice desktops? Nah, the GOP Senators were in a huff at the idea some good ol' boys might be held accountable as men by civilians for flagrant abuse of women in the military.

Did someone forget that the American military reports to civilian command? Did the f'g DEMS forget that? Gee.

It's still true that if you're an airframe mechanic and a woman in the military, your best friend may be the biggest wrench you can pick up with one hand and swing at the colleague who's thinking "consent" is when you miss. And their mentors better keep passing that info along, because the Dems of the House stood there and threw some other possible outcomes into the trash bin out of simple fear of a handful of far right wingers like Lee, Hawley, Inhofe, out of 50 Republican Senators.

It's stuff llike that that makes progressives (House members or voters) crazy. It doesn't feel like oh too bad, one of our bipartisanship efforts failed this time, those last minute cave-ins. Those are more readily owned and by members across the aisle, publicly. Lyme disease research, clean water measures... eventually after a few false starts, those get passed. This other stuff that happens at the last minute is supposedly sponsored in bipartisan fashion but always gets yanked out of House legislation by word from particular GOP Senators. And the stuff that gets left on the cutting room floor is usually something to do with empowering people who aren't straight white males with enough dough to get from here to payday without going into debt. It just gets old and to me it still feels like the Dems allow it to happen. They allow it.
 
That is fiction. A few possible Dem members are dwarfed by the vast majority of Dems in Congress.

Not getting things done is not getting things done. Same end result and that will probably show in the polls. If it comes down to just 2 representatives then we should probably hit the rewind button and determine why it's even that thin of a voting margin to begin with. If you're such a great party (which means proven track record) then you should probably have a lot more members in Congress. This shit didn't start with Trump. Or even Obama. Maybe the brick wall obstruction by the Republicans did, but shifting all legislation to favor the rich and corporations didn't, and both parties are complicit.
 
@Hrafn You have a history of thumbs downing my less than stellar views on the Democrat party. Do you think I'm a Republican? My distain for the Democrat establishment is that they've managed to advertise traditional Democrat values as extreme socialists and they have a policy and voting record to prove their true values. What's your angle?
 
Back
Top