The Partisan Divide on Issues

[Classic-Xer]

(01-28-2021, 05:52 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(01-26-2021, 01:27 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-25-2021, 11:50 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-23-2021, 01:07 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: You do not want your sons joining Proud Bois or Boogaloo Boys. Really.

Are you sure Classic Xer is not himself a member of Proud Boys? He talks like he is.

No. I'm a member of a much larger group of American citizens that's largely idle at the moment. Like I've mentioned, the ball is in your court and the fate of the Democratic party has been placed  in their own hands and that's the way it should be right now. Welcome to the 4T.

I have the faith (and you are welcome to call it arrogance) to believe that we Democrats have far more flexibility in meeting economic distress. Our idea of what America encompasses includes people who used to vote heavily Democratic in the latter part of the 20th century: poor white people in the Mountain and Deep South. If we win such people back because of some 21st-century equivalent of a New Deal or a Marshall Plan, then your Party stands to lose landslide elections. 

I want to see a revival of service as an objective of politics at the expense of identity. Identity politics, either way, are bad politics.

The plutocrats to which you (and this means Classic X'er) show political loyalty don't give a damn about poor white people in Appalachia. Well I do, dammit! Poverty for any large group of people serves the rest of us badly unless we be exploiters. Aside from the ethical disgrace of exploitation, it is not even good for survival. To be sure one can live well as an exploiter, but one can also see the exploited turning against one. Just think of Russia in 1917 or China or northern Vietnam in the late 1940's.

Social market (like contemporary, united Germany) or Socialist state (like the former DDR)? I'd rather have the former.

I'd called it ignorance instead of arrogance but whatever. You haven't figured the plutocrats are supporting the Democrats today. You also haven't figured that the proceeds associated with the Democratic victories will be going to big city round heads and the plutocrats and whatever initiatives associated with Uber elites and the crony capitalists associated with them. So, you're a German American. Well, you're speaking to a British, French, Bohemian/Czechoslovakian/Czech Republic (I figured I mention all ) American or just an American. Well, you live in America with a free market economy with several monopolies that are currently getting in the way of progress. I hate to say it dude but your not going to have a choice when the American first movement decides it's done with the Democrats and splits the country and you end up with whatever the Democrats impose and force you to accept afterwards. I've been telling you that oil and water don't mix and one size fits all will never work in an American country with all kinds of climates.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-28-2021, 08:51 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The Trump supporters are now knowingly committed to turning the USA into an authoritarian state in which elections are decided by the views of the current president, as long as that president is a racist xenophobe neo-liberal gun totin' religious fanaticism-supporting Republican con man.

The model for them is not only Trump, but Vladimir Putin, who has all the elite bought and paid for leaving the people with no means to assert any power. A Mafia-state run by a gangster. That's what the vast majority of Republicans want, including Classic Xer.

Isn't that what you're doing/supporting now. You must be deaf or unable to read. What did you say would happen to us (America) if we (America) if we (America) revolt and don't go along with the Democratic agenda? So, how did you get in power again? Did you take advantage and fully politicize a national crisis? How many election laws did you guys illegally change to do it? How many laws/rules are you going change to keep the Democrats in power? Do we live in a third world country yet? Do we live live in a county that's loaded with dumb peasants yet? Do we live in a country that can barely speak English let alone read English yet? Do we live in a country where the majority are barely educated? Do we live in a country with no rules yet? Do we live in a country with no decency or people with merit yet? Do we live in a country where any idiot can be President yet? You do, we don't and we prefer to keep it that way.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-28-2021, 07:18 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: As I told, there's not going to be much of a struggle when the vast majority of the Republican base supported Trump through thick and thin and damn near defeated the Democratic establishment without the full support of the GOP establishment. I don't know why you would think a more radical Democratic party would not be countered by a more radical Republican party these days. Lack of common sense or wishful thinking? I've heard the support for Trump among Republicans (primarily Republican women) has risen substantially since Biden has taken office and revealed his intentions. So, other than a Supreme Court that's useless since the Constitution is no longer recognized as the governing authority by the party in power, what is the American population's only option? Like I said Bob, you are on the wrong side of an impending conflict with all of America and all of its power. Unfortunately, you don't have enough decent/normal Democrats who have courage left in Washington DC these days. So, a violent conflict is pretty much inevitable. As I recall, American forces stood down and remained idle as Berlin was conquered by barbarians. So, how close are the Woke's to being like the Nazi's or Bolsheviks or any other political cult with its own ideas, way of thinking and way of doing things vs the American way these days?

Again, when the crisis comes a focused government attacks the problems that the conservatives ignored. Sure, you can continue to try to obstruct, but you have done that long enough to be steamrollered. Enough people are welcoming the problem solving that the die hard Trumpists are becoming an ever more intense following of an ever smaller minority. The Democrats know they have to deliver on their promises, so they will try to deliver on their promises.

Sure, you are obsessed with violence and can hint at threats, but most of the Trumpists are like you. Much noise, little action. Those who aren't are on video from the 6th.

We'll see.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-29-2021, 02:47 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-28-2021, 07:18 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: As I told, there's not going to be much of a struggle when the vast majority of the Republican base supported Trump through thick and thin and damn near defeated the Democratic establishment without the full support of the GOP establishment. I don't know why you would think a more radical Democratic party would not be countered by a more radical Republican party these days. Lack of common sense or wishful thinking? I've heard the support for Trump among Republicans (primarily Republican women) has risen substantially since Biden has taken office and revealed his intentions. So, other than a Supreme Court that's useless since the Constitution is no longer recognized as the governing authority by the party in power, what is the American population's only option? Like I said Bob, you are on the wrong side of an impending conflict with all of America and all of its power. Unfortunately, you don't have enough decent/normal Democrats who have courage left in Washington DC these days. So, a violent conflict is pretty much inevitable. As I recall, American forces stood down and remained idle as Berlin was conquered by barbarians. So, how close are the Woke's to being like the Nazi's or Bolsheviks or any other political cult with its own ideas, way of thinking and way of doing things vs the American way these days?

Again, when the crisis comes a focused government attacks the problems that the conservatives ignored.  Sure, you can continue to try to obstruct, but you have done that long enough to be steamrollered.  Enough people are welcoming the problem solving that the die hard Trumpists are becoming an ever more intense following of an ever smaller minority.  The Democrats know they have to deliver on their promises, so they will try to deliver on their promises.

Sure, you are obsessed with violence and can hint at threats, but most of the Trumpists are like you.  Much noise, little action.  Those who aren't are on video from the 6th.

We'll see.

Bob, this is no longer liberal vs conservative. This is now Democrats vs Americans.

[Bob Butler 54]

According to CNN, it seems the Trumpists are making much noise to their representatives.  At the same time people are leaving the Republican Party since January sixth.  This will make it difficult for any who oppose Trump to survive a Republican primary.  At the same time, it will make it difficult to win in the general elections.  Oh, there are some very red states where the Trumpists will stay on top, but the overall balance of the country?

If the battle for the soul of the Republican Party is indeed underway, so far it looks like the Trump faction will win, but the Republicans will lose.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-29-2021, 05:56 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Bob, this is no longer liberal vs conservative. This is now Democrats vs Americans.

If your 'Americans' are like you, endless. yap, no action, that will not be a problem.

[pbrower2a]

(01-28-2021, 09:57 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-28-2021, 05:52 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(01-26-2021, 01:27 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-25-2021, 11:50 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-23-2021, 01:07 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: You do not want your sons joining Proud Bois or Boogaloo Boys. Really.

Are you sure Classic Xer is not himself a member of Proud Boys? He talks like he is.

No. I'm a member of a much larger group of American citizens that's largely idle at the moment. Like I've mentioned, the ball is in your court and the fate of the Democratic party has been placed  in their own hands and that's the way it should be right now. Welcome to the 4T.

I have the faith (and you are welcome to call it arrogance) to believe that we Democrats have far more flexibility in meeting economic distress. Our idea of what America encompasses includes people who used to vote heavily Democratic in the latter part of the 20th century: poor white people in the Mountain and Deep South. If we win such people back because of some 21st-century equivalent of a New Deal or a Marshall Plan, then your Party stands to lose landslide elections. 

I want to see a revival of service as an objective of politics at the expense of identity. Identity politics, either way, are bad politics.

The plutocrats to which you (and this means Classic X'er) show political loyalty don't give a damn about poor white people in Appalachia. Well I do, dammit! Poverty for any large group of people serves the rest of us badly unless we be exploiters. Aside from the ethical disgrace of exploitation, it is not even good for survival. To be sure one can live well as an exploiter, but one can also see the exploited turning against one. Just think of Russia in 1917 or China or northern Vietnam in the late 1940's.

Social market (like contemporary, united Germany) or Socialist state (like the former DDR)? I'd rather have the former.

I'd called it ignorance instead of arrogance but whatever.

Don't confuse me with einzige, who really is a Marxist-Leninist. The rich have more of a stake in the smooth operation of government and recognize at times, whether out of conscience or caution, that it is best that the common man have a stake in the system. They typically have a desire to prevent a proletarian revolution that would surely dispossess them and almost as surely kill them. Some of the inheritor class are smart and some are stupid. Wars for profit can be highly lucrative -- until the war ends in defeat and culminates in the warmongers being tried and convicted as war criminals, category "crimes against peace". The warmongers can lose their assets, their political power, their freedom, and perhaps even their lives. 

Economic elites might have the chance to take everything, in which case the prosperity of the society is only for a few. That is not good for social peace.  

Quote:You haven't figured the plutocrats are supporting the Democrats today.

Most of the super-rich support Republicans. They are for tax cuts and for evisceration of labor unions. Republicans have come to accept Big Government as means of getting the rewards of crony capitalism, including sweetheart deals more lucrative than competitive enterprise.

Quote:You also haven't figured that the proceeds associated with the Democratic victories will be going to big city round heads and the plutocrats and whatever initiatives associated with Uber elites and the crony capitalists associated with them.

So?

Quote:So, you're a German American. Well, you're speaking to a British, French, Bohemian/Czechoslovakian/Czech Republic (I figured I mention all ) American or just an American.

To be more specific, I am nearly-half German and Swiss (largely Pennsylvania Dutch, which is basically German and Swiss and not Dutch) and nearly-half English, Welsh, and Scots-Irish, with a smattering of other origins (Dutch, French, Belgian, Danish, and Norwegian)... with some mysteries. That also says much about what I am not. If one looks at where my ancestors first appeared in America they appeared about everywhere from northern Virginia to about the Massachusetts/New Hampshire state line, so that rules out any groups of people from the Tidewater region or Spanish America.  

Unlike you I do not define what is America by what is not like me. Let's start with two of the most obvious:  I know of no ancestry in First Peoples of any kind in the Americas. They were here before our ancestors got here. Then consider the people who got recognition in view of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments as Americans, enslaved Africans and their descendants. Their masters stripped the slaves from any cultural connections, whether of language, religion, or music and imposed upon them patterns of life usually associated (Louisiana was an exception, as there was a different basis) with a servile culture associated with an English peasantry that had no reason to emigrate to the New World and its dangers to endure much the same poverty and subjection that it knew in England. Yes, descendants of those slaves have developed distinctive ways of life -- but they did so in America with what was available. It may be quite creative and innovative, but it is still artificial. It is also distinctly American, and it is very distinct from the cultures of African-descended people in Brazil, Spanish-speaking peoples of African origin, and even Jamaicans. What else can it be?

There are many ways to be an American.    
  

Quote: Well, you live in America with a free market economy with several monopolies that are currently getting in the way of progress. 

Injustice toward anyone else does not serve me. 

Quote:I hate to say it dude but your not going to have a choice when the American first movement decides it's done with the Democrats and  splits the country and you end up with whatever the Democrats impose and force you to accept afterwards. I've been telling you that oil and water don't mix and one size fits all will never work in an American country with all kinds of climates.

That is how things went in Yugoslavia. It was ugly. I refuse to align myself with anyone who does evil to others.

[Bob Butler 54]

Apparently, there is a disagreement on where to emphasize Trump's second impeachment defense.  Trump wants to emphasize the supposed voter fraud, say that the vote was stolen.  The lawyers want to emphasize that an impeachment after someone is removed is unconstitutional.  The difference is strong enough that many lawyers including the boss ones have quit.

Mind you, neither defense seems to appeal to me.  Thus far, no evidence has been provided for fraud.  I find it hard to think there is any evidence as if there was why not present it?  There have also been impeachment trials after other officials have resigned or otherwise left office.  You just want to prevent the guy from serving again, so the process is not empty.

That doesn't stop the Republican senators.  They seem afraid enough of Trump's clout with the base to ignore unimportant stuff like facts and oaths.

But Trump may care as much for the fraud myth as the trial results?  If he cannot keep the myth alive, he will have less influence, more trouble establishing a show.

I wish I cared less.

[David Horn]

(01-31-2021, 07:44 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: ... I wish I cared less.

Amen to that.  There's real value in being numb these days. Unfortunately, neither of us qualifies.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-31-2021, 07:44 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Apparently, there is a disagreement on where to emphasize Trump's second impeachment defense.  Trump wants to emphasize the supposed voter fraud, say that the vote was stolen.  The lawyers want to emphasize that an impeachment after someone is removed is unconstitutional.  The difference is strong enough that many lawyers including the boss ones have quit.

Mind you, neither defense seems to appeal to me.  Thus far, no evidence has been provided for fraud.  I find it hard to think there is any evidence as if there was why not present it?  There have also been impeachment trials after other officials have resigned or otherwise left office.  You just want to prevent the guy from serving again, so the process is not empty.

That doesn't stop the Republican senators.  They seem afraid enough of Trump's clout with the base to ignore unimportant stuff like facts and oaths.

But Trump may care as much for the fraud myth as the trial results?  If he cannot keep the myth alive, he will have less influence, more trouble establishing a show.

I wish I cared less.

The impeachment of a President who is out of office has already been determined unconstitutional and reduced to nothing more than political theatre.

[Einzige]

(01-31-2021, 03:01 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-31-2021, 07:44 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Apparently, there is a disagreement on where to emphasize Trump's second impeachment defense.  Trump wants to emphasize the supposed voter fraud, say that the vote was stolen.  The lawyers want to emphasize that an impeachment after someone is removed is unconstitutional.  The difference is strong enough that many lawyers including the boss ones have quit.

Mind you, neither defense seems to appeal to me.  Thus far, no evidence has been provided for fraud.  I find it hard to think there is any evidence as if there was why not present it?  There have also been impeachment trials after other officials have resigned or otherwise left office.  You just want to prevent the guy from serving again, so the process is not empty.

That doesn't stop the Republican senators.  They seem afraid enough of Trump's clout with the base to ignore unimportant stuff like facts and oaths.

But Trump may care as much for the fraud myth as the trial results?  If he cannot keep the myth alive, he will have less influence, more trouble establishing a show.

I wish I cared less.

The impeachment of a President who is out of office has already been determined unconstitutional and reduced to nothing more than political theatre.

Hey, buddy. The whole political system is theater, Trump included.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-31-2021, 03:01 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: The impeachment of a President who is out of office has already been determined unconstitutional and reduced to nothing more than political theatre.

Where?  What line of the Constitution is violated?  Several judges and at least one cabinet member have tried to avoid prosecution by resigning.  It didn't do them any good.  By your scheme it requires no effort to avoid a trial.

[mamabug]

(01-31-2021, 03:01 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: The impeachment of a President who is out of office has already been determined unconstitutional and reduced to nothing more than political theatre.

No, it hasn't, but only because nobody with standing has ever brought the issue to SCOTUS.  All the 'precedents' about holding trials after someone has left office are invalid, too, because in the grand total of three cases where it happened, none of them were convicted. One, in fact, was not convicted because the Senators decided they themselves could not be impeached.

Of course, Trump won't be convicted either which would make me wonder what the point is if I didn't already know it is a cynically partisan one to satiate the base's desire for revenge, keep Trump as the 'devil' that needs to be rallied against, and prevent Republicans from regrouping enough to take back congress in the midterms.  Oh what awesome moral and unifying leadership we are seeing out of the DNC.

All arguments about whether or not it is constitutional are assertions of whether or not SCOTUS *would* rule it as unconstitutional.  I'm not sure on the face of it that it would be, however there is another constitutional issue at play which is whether, if convicted, any move to disbar from future office could apply to *elected* positions as opposed to *appointed.*  The will of the voter (or electors) is the ultimate check on government and it gets into incredibly murky territory to suggest that one branch of government could impose extra-constitutional requirements on office holders.  The term used in the Constitution refers to 'office of honor, etc.' which are British Common Law terms for appointed positions.  

Which, again, is all moot because SCOTUS won't hear either case since HE. WON'T. BE. CONVICTED.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-31-2021, 06:54 PM)mamabug Wrote:

(01-31-2021, 03:01 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: The impeachment of a President who is out of office has already been determined unconstitutional and reduced to nothing more than political theatre.

No, it hasn't, but only because nobody with standing has ever brought the issue to SCOTUS.  All the 'precedents' about holding trials after someone has left office are invalid, too, because in the grand total of three cases where it happened, none of them were convicted. One, in fact, was not convicted because the Senators decided they themselves could not be impeached.

Of course, Trump won't be convicted either which would make me wonder what the point is if I didn't already know it is a cynically partisan one to satiate the base's desire for revenge, keep Trump as the 'devil' that needs to be rallied against, and prevent Republicans from regrouping enough to take back congress in the midterms.  Oh what awesome moral and unifying leadership we are seeing out of the DNC.

All arguments about whether or not it is constitutional are assertions of whether or not SCOTUS *would* rule it as unconstitutional.  I'm not sure on the face of it that it would be, however there is another constitutional issue at play which is whether, if convicted, any move to disbar from future office could apply to *elected* positions as opposed to *appointed.*  The will of the voter (or electors) is the ultimate check on government and it gets into incredibly murky territory to suggest that one branch of government could impose extra-constitutional requirements on office holders.  The term used in the Constitution refers to 'office of honor, etc.' which are British Common Law terms for appointed positions.  

Which, again, is all moot because SCOTUS won't hear either case since HE. WON'T. BE. CONVICTED.

Yes it has. Where's the SCOTUS? The SCOTUS has already decided it's unconstitutional and sit this one out. If there's no judge, it's not a legal proceeding and it's nothing more than political theater. I hear the Democrats appointed a former Democratic Senator (Pat Leahy) to act as a judge and over see the public trial. It's going to be another partisan shit show.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-31-2021, 06:54 PM)mamabug Wrote: Which, again, is all moot because SCOTUS won't hear either case since HE. WON'T. BE. CONVICTED.

If he isn't convicted, a bunch of Republican senators will have discredited themselves in the general election. If he is convicted, we will be rid of Trump. It is worth putting up with a little theater.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-31-2021, 10:23 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-31-2021, 06:54 PM)mamabug Wrote: Which, again, is all moot because SCOTUS won't hear either case since HE. WON'T. BE. CONVICTED.

If he isn't convicted, a bunch of Republican senators will have discredited themselves in the general election.  If he is convicted, we will be rid of Trump.  It is worth putting up with a little theater.

The only Republican senators running the risk of being discredited and removed from contention are the five who are directly associated with another Democratic run shit show.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-31-2021, 03:23 PM)Einzige Wrote:

(01-31-2021, 03:01 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-31-2021, 07:44 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Apparently, there is a disagreement on where to emphasize Trump's second impeachment defense.  Trump wants to emphasize the supposed voter fraud, say that the vote was stolen.  The lawyers want to emphasize that an impeachment after someone is removed is unconstitutional.  The difference is strong enough that many lawyers including the boss ones have quit.

Mind you, neither defense seems to appeal to me.  Thus far, no evidence has been provided for fraud.  I find it hard to think there is any evidence as if there was why not present it?  There have also been impeachment trials after other officials have resigned or otherwise left office.  You just want to prevent the guy from serving again, so the process is not empty.

That doesn't stop the Republican senators.  They seem afraid enough of Trump's clout with the base to ignore unimportant stuff like facts and oaths.

But Trump may care as much for the fraud myth as the trial results?  If he cannot keep the myth alive, he will have less influence, more trouble establishing a show.

I wish I cared less.

The impeachment of a President who is out of office has already been determined unconstitutional and reduced to nothing more than political theatre.

Hey, buddy. The whole political system is theater, Trump included.

You're right to a point, the majority of it is a side show with that's not worth wasting time watching these days.

[Bob Butler 54]

There have been a number of crisis in the past.  The US Revolution got rid of taxation without representation, kings and colonial imperialism.  The US Civil War got rid of slavery, enabled the Robber Barons to take firm control of the federal government, and enabled westward expansion.  The Great Depression initiated the government regulating the economy, if not precisely how.  World War II initiated a policy of containment worldwide, killing any vestiges of isolationism.

In all these cases, there were conservatives resisting change to the status quo in the preceding unraveling.  The prevented the solution to the pending problem.  The problem got worse.  Eventually the people and the opposition decided the problem had to be solved.  The national mood of most was to address the problem.

For much of 2019 I was more and more concerned that no trigger would occur.  We would wade through the prophet - nomad - civic alignment of generations without a problem coming to a head.  Turning theory is a bit weak on what would happen then.  I began to explore what might, with the answer being a rather potent awakening.

Of course, we had triggers.  I currently consider us to have five crisis problems which have to be addressed.

The first is a pair, COVID and it’s economic fallout.  Two highly interrelated problems were such that you can’t fix the economy without first fixing the pandemic.  Unbelievably, the federal government did not attempt to fix the problem.

The second is systematic racism with the responding red violence.  With hindsight, there were a lot of catalysts leading up to the trigger, the death of George Floyd.  The response was classic nonviolence with a political - legislation likely resulting with the expected Biden victory in the election.  Alas, another victory against racism triggered the red violent response.  I’m guessing the red extreme would have remained quiet if the Black Lives Matter protest were not heading for success.  Basically, the racists could not have continued existing policies unless Trump and the Republicans clung to power, which they weren’t about to let happen.  While the capitol insurrection wasn’t overtly about racism, they were let by racist organizations for a racist leader.  They were betting on America being a country of white supremacy, and were committed to it remaining that way, even to the extent of violence.

Global Warming gets an honorable mention.  There was no specific trigger save the more common fires out west and hurricanes down south.  I can see no prompt fix.  The turning mood will likely shift long before the work on global warming is done.  The commonality with the prior crises is the conservative refusal to address the problem.  The current situation was considered quite satisfactory by conservatives without any change.

The obvious answer if you are in the conservative camp is to do just enough solving of the problem to stave off a crisis.  If the unraveling amounts to a conservative temporary victory, stave off the trigger, keep the problem from reaching a level where action is desirable or necessary.

But, no, the conservatives would rather stay in place, will fight hard, often literally fighting, to have the existing structure remain the same.  It doesn’t matter if the solution is morally wrong, threatening a headache, and means downfall.

Is it any wonder that the public decides in a crisis that the problem has to be solved, will be solved, and those who don’t want to solve things are pariahs?  Small wonder that the end of the crisis is dedicated to the problem never arising again, and that the mood of the high is to step on anyone that shows a preference for the old values?

[pbrower2a]

(01-31-2021, 10:52 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-31-2021, 10:23 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-31-2021, 06:54 PM)mamabug Wrote: Which, again, is all moot because SCOTUS won't hear either case since HE. WON'T. BE. CONVICTED.

If he isn't convicted, a bunch of Republican senators will have discredited themselves in the general election.  If he is convicted, we will be rid of Trump.  It is worth putting up with a little theater.

The only Republican senators running the risk of being discredited and removed from contention are the five who are directly associated with another Democratic run shit show.

No, integrity usually pays better in the longer term. Trump has too much damage associated with him to be worth defending... fools think that spin works, but in the end it invariably fails. One lie demands another lie until the unsteady hillock collapses.   

Republicans who can ditch Trump will at the least have clean consciences. Republicans in states anywhere near being swing states who did defend Trump take the risk of having his disgrace attached to them in the next election.

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-01-2021, 12:18 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Republicans who can ditch Trump will at the least have clean consciences.

Doesn't this assume there are Republicans with consciences?