#i promise all the people then who voted third party were not exclusive to florida either thus creating how small the margin of votes was | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

patriotsnet · 3 years ago

Text

Why Are The Republicans So Evil

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/why-are-the-republicans-so-evil/

Why Are The Republicans So Evil

In 2008 Republicans Said That If We Elect A Democratic President We Would Be Hit By Al Qaeda Again Perhaps Worse Than The Attack On 9/11

A VOTERS’ GUIDE TO REPUBLICANS

Former Vice-President Dick Cheney stated that electing a Democrat as president would all but guarantee that there would be another major attack on America by Al Qaeda. Cheney and other Republicans were, thankfully, completely wrong. During Obama’s presidency, we had zero deaths on U.S. soil from Al Qaeda attacks and we succeeded in killing Bin Laden along with dozens of other high ranking Al Qaeda leaders.

Republicans Will Likely Take Control Of The Senate By 2024

The usual midterm House losses by the White House party dont always extend to the Senate because only a third of that chamber is up for election every two years and the landscape sometimes strongly favors the presidential party . But there a still generally an out-party wave that can matter, which is why Republicans may have a better than average chance of winning in at least some of the many battleground states that will hold Senate elections next year . If they win four of the six youll probably be looking at a Republican Senate.

But its the 2024 Senate landscape that looks really promising for the GOP. Democrats will be defending 23 seats and Republicans just 10. Three Democratic seats, and all the Republican seats, are in states Trump carried twice. Four other Democratic seats are in states Trump won once. It should be a banner year for Senate Republicans.

The Corruption Of The Republican Party

The GOP is best understood as an insurgency that carried the seeds of its own corruption from the start.

About the author: George Packer is a staff writer at The Atlantic. He is the author of Last Best Hope: America in Crisis and Renewal,Our Man: Richard Holbrooke and the End of the American Century,The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America, and The Assassins Gate: America in Iraq.

Why has the Republican Party become so thoroughly corrupt? The reason is historicalit goes back many decadesand, in a way, philosophical. The party is best understood as an insurgency that carried the seeds of its own corruption from the start.

I dont mean the kind of corruption that regularly sends lowlifes like Rod Blagojevich, the Democratic former governor of Illinois, to prison. Those abuses are nonpartisan and always with us. So is vote theft of the kind weve just seen in North Carolinaafter all, the alleged fraudster employed by the Republican candidate for Congress hired himself out to Democrats in 2010.

The fact that no plausible election outcome can check the abuse of power is what makes political corruption so dangerous. It strikes at the heart of democracy. It destroys the compact between the people and the government. In rendering voters voiceless, it pushes everyone closer to the use of undemocratic means.

Read Also: How Many Republicans Voted To Impeach Trump In The House

Opinion: If The Gop Is Now Home To Evil Lunacy Its Time To Leave

The Republican Party refuses to investigate the most violent act of insurrection since the Civil War because it might make the party look bad.

Think about that. It would look bad because it would be obvious that their cult hero incited a MAGA mob and because House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy , who pleaded with the president to call off the rioters at the Capitolon Jan. 6, would be compelled to testify. He might then have to explain why he still takes direction from someone who betrayed his oath.

A commission would look bad for the GOP because it would short-circuit the big lie that the 2020 election was stolen, confirming that this effort at subterfuge was intended to assuage the ego of a dangerous man-child. The optics, as they say, would be bad because the GOPs continued refusal to renounce its disgraced former leader would affirm its willingness to open the country up to another violent insurrection. It would also look really bad if some members of Congress were shown to havecommunicated with the Jan. 6attackers. We get hung up on Republicans refusal to endorse the commission, but we should remain focused on their original sin: subversion of democracy.

With or without the commission, the Republican Party is a danger to the republic. And that gets back to the central question as to why any respectable patriot remains in the party. The GOP of Ronald Reagan, of John McCain, of Mitch Daniels does not exist. But dont take my word for it.

Think Republicans Are Disconnected From Reality It’s Even Worse Among Liberals

A new survey found Democrats live with less political diversity despite being more tolerant of it with startling results

In a surprising new national survey, members of each major American political party were asked what they imagined to be the beliefs held by members of the other. The survey asked Democrats: How many Republicans believe that racism is still a problem in America today? Democrats guessed 50%. Its actually 79%. The survey asked Republicans how many Democrats believe most police are bad people. Republicans estimated half; its really 15%.

The survey, published by the thinktank More in Common as part of its Hidden Tribes of America project, was based on a sample of more than 2,000 people. One of the studys findings: the wilder a persons guess as to what the other party is thinking, the more likely they are to also personally disparage members of the opposite party as mean, selfish or bad. Not only do the two parties diverge on a great many issues, they also disagree on what they disagree on.

This effect, the report says, is so strong that Democrats without a high school diploma are three times more accurate than those with a postgraduate degree. And the more politically engaged a person is, the greater the distortion.

Should the US participate in the Paris climate accord and reduce greenhouse gas emissions regardless of what other countries do? A majority of voters in both parties said yes.

You May Like: How Should Republicans Vote In California

Prior To Going To War In Iraq Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld Optimistically Predicted The Iraq War Might Last Six Days Six Weeks I Doubt Six Months

What’s more, Vice-President Dick Cheney said we would be greeted as liberators by the Iraqi people after we overthrow Saddam.

They were both horribly wrong. Instead of six weeks or six months, the Iraq war lasted eight long and bloody years costing thousands of American lives. It led to an Iraqi civil war between the Sunnis and the Shiites that took hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives. Many Iraqi militia groups were formed to fight against the U.S. forces that occupied Iraq. Whats more, Al Qaeda, which did not exist in Iraq before the war, used the turmoil in Iraq to establish a new foothold in that country.

The Iraq war was arguably the most tragic foreign policy blunder in US history.

Why Is Billionaire George Soros A Bogeyman For The Hard Right

US mail bomb threats

He’s a Jewish multi-billionaire philanthropist who has given away $32bn. Why does the hard right from America to Australia and from Hungary to Honduras believe George Soros is at the heart of a global conspiracy, asks the BBC’s Mike Rudin.

One quiet Monday afternoon last October in leafy upstate New York, a large manila envelope was placed in the mailbox of an exclusive country mansion belonging to multi-billionaire philanthropist George Soros.

The package looked suspicious. The return address was misspelt as “FLORIDS” and the mail had already been delivered earlier that day. The police were called and soon the FBI was on the scene.

Inside the bubble-wrapped envelope was a photograph of Soros, marked with a red “X”. Alongside it, a six-inch plastic pipe, a small clock, a battery, wiring and a black powder.

More than a dozen similar packages were sent to the homes of former President Barack Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other prominent Democrats.

None of the devices exploded. The FBI traced the bombs to a white van covered in pro-Trump and anti-Democrat stickers, parked in a supermarket car park in Florida.

Immediately the right-wing media claimed it was a “false-flag” operation intended to derail President Donald Trump and the Republican campaign, just two weeks before the crucial US mid-term elections.

Soon the internet was awash with allegations that the bomb plot was a hoax organised by Soros himself.

Also Check: Why Are Republicans Trying To Repeal Obamacare

The Banality Of Evil And The Evanescence Of Democratic Governance

On May 28, Republican U.S. Senators chose to prevent the creation of an independent commission to investigate the insurrection that occurred at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. They did so after Democratic Party leaders had acceded to their many demands concerning the composition and remit of the body and despite the fact that many who voted to oppose the commission, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, had previously embraced the need for just such a group and investigation. More, they quite openly justified their vote by contending that the findings of such a body might prove difficult for the GOP politically as it seeks to win control of the Congress in 2022.

;;;;;;;;In a commentary entitled the Banality of Democratic Collapse, published before the Republican Party took this historically significant anti-democratic step, the likelihood of which was then all but certain in any case, New York Times columnist and Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman contended:; ; ; ; ;;

;;;;;;;;The GOP Senate vote to prevent creation of the commission is surely an example;of the phenomenon to which Krugman pointed. He went on to argue that this action and the weakness and cowardice of far too many craven careerist Republican officeholders is why American democracy is hanging by a thread. Cowardice, not craziness, is the reason government by the people may soon perish from the earth.

;;;;;;;;Elon observed that Arendt insisted,

Notes

Krugman. The Banality of Democratic Collapse.

Republicans Are Suddenly Afraid Of Democracy

Comedian: Being Taught That Republicans Are Evil (Pt. 2) | Bridget Phetasy | COMEDY | Rubin Report

In a series of tweets, Senator Mike Lee laid the groundwork to contest the results or block an elected majority from governing.

Were not a democracy, Republican Senator Mike Lee tweeted in the middle of Wednesday nights vice-presidential debate. He was reacting to something hed heard onstage there, in his home state of Utah. Another tweet: The word democracy appears nowhere in the Constitution, perhaps because our form of government is not a democracy. Its a constitutional republic. To me it matters. It should matter to anyone who worries about the excessive accumulation of power in the hands of the few. Hours after the debate Lee was still worrying the thought: Democracy isnt the objective; liberty, peace, and prospefity are. We want the human condition to flourish. Rank democracy can thwart that.

My guess is that Lee wasnt just being pedantic. Worried about an election in which the people can express their will, Lee was laying the groundwork to contest the results or block an elected majority from governing.

Also Check: Did Republicans Lose Any Senate Seats

Republicans Claim That Raising The Minimum Wage Would Kill Jobs And Hurt The Economy

There is far more evidence to the contrary. Cities and states that have higher minimum wages tend to have better rates of job creation and economic growth.

Detailed analyses show that job losses due to increases in the minimum wage are almost negligible compared to the economic benefits of higher wages. Previous increases in the minimum wage have never resulted in the dire consequences that Republicans have predicted.

Republicans have accused President Obama of “cutting defense spending to the bone”. This chart of 2014 discretionary spending firmly disproves that argument.

In 2001 When George W Bush Cut Taxes For The Wealthy Republicans Predicted Record Job Growth Increased Budget Surplus And Nationwide Prosperity

Once again, the exact opposite occurred. After the Bush tax cuts were enacted:

The budget surplus immediately disappeared.

The budget deficit eventually grew to $1.4 trillion by the time Bush left office.

Less than 3 million net jobs were added during Bushs eight years.

The poverty rate began climbing again.

We experienced two recessions along with the greatest collapse of our financial system since the Great Depression.

In 1993, President Clinton signed the Brady Law mandating nationwide background checks and a waiting period to buy a gun.

Recommended Reading: What Did The Democratic Republicans Stand For

In The 1960s Republicans Claimed That The Passage Of Medicare Would Be The End Of Capitalism

California Governor Ronald Reagan even proclaimed Medicare would lead to the death of freedom in America. Of course, they were laughably wrong. Since the passage of Medicare, capitalism has thrived and millions of elderly Americans have had longer, healthier lives and greater personal freedom. Medicare remains the most popular form of health insurance in the United States.

When Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.5%, Republicans predicted a recession, increased unemployment, and a growing budget deficit. They were wrong.

The 2024 Presidential Election Will Be Close Even If Trump Is The Gop Nominee

One very important thing we should have all taken away from both the 2016 and 2020 presidential contests is that the two major parties are in virtual equipose . The ideological sorting-out of the two parties since the 1960s has in turn led to extreme partisan polarization, a decline in ticket-splitting and and in number of genuine swing voters. Among other things, this has led to an atmosphere where Republicans have paid little or no price for the extremism theyve disproportionately exhibited, or for the bad conduct of their leaders, most notably the 45th president.

Indeed, the polarized climate encourages outlandish and immoral base mobilization efforts of the sort Trump deployed so regularly. Some Republicans partisans shook their heads sadly and voted the straight GOP ticket anyway, And to the extent there were swing voters they tended strongly to believe that both parties were equally guilty of excessive partisanship, and/or that all politicians are worthless scum, so why not vote for the worthless scum under whom the economy hummed?

The bottom line is that anyone who assumes Republicans are in irreversible decline in presidential elections really hasnt been paying attention.

You May Like: How Many House Seats Were Won By Republicans

But What About Conservatives

I could say some very similar/but different things about conservatives. But a lot of that brings us back to the start and perceptions.

Liberals think that the only way to solve things is with government/taxes/regulations to try to fight injustice… thus not doing so, must be because they just don’t care. Which is where the left’s view of the right as being greedy and morally inferior comes from.

But not choosing the same solutions, isn’t the same as not caring. Some just know they can help more by NOT getting involved and letting them learn/work it out on their own. Or that short term economic benefits with long term economic costs aren’t always a good trade .

That doesn’t mean Republicans are never wrong, or don’t go too far. And of course Government CAN help with some problems, in the short term. Just long term, many of those solutions will make things worse . But either extreme: Always Government or Never Government – can be equally wrong. But the point is perceptions. Once you assume the other side is evil , they’re going to get back to assuming your stupid.

The majority of impassioned and frank discussions with the left, from my side , often gets them to claim I hate the poor, or am just greedy, self deluded and so on. And when I share what I’ve done in my past, to try to convince them otherwise, they get mad . Good people can disagree on how to solve things. Or even on priorities of what should be solved first.

In 2009 Republicans Predicted That The Economic Stimulus Package Would Only Make The Recession Worse And Cause More Unemployment

The results show they couldn’t have been more wrong. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ended the recession after only a few months. Although 750,000 people were losing their jobs each month when Obama took office, after the Recovery Act was passed the rate of job loss immediately decreased each month and within a year the economy showed positive job growth.

Considering the severity of the 2008 economic collapse and the total opposition by Republicans to do anything at all to stimulate the economy, it is remarkable that the US economy recovered as quickly as it did.

Looking at the rate of job loss and job creation, its easy to see that the stimulus of 2009 was highly successful in stopping the job losses and turning the economy around.

Also Check: How Many People Are Registered Republicans

Republicans Said Waterboarding And Other Forms Of Enhanced Interrogation Are Not Torture And Are Necessary In Fighting Islamic Extremism

In reality, waterboarding and other forms of enhanced interrogation that inflict pain, suffering, or fear of death are outlawed by US law, the US Constitution, and international treaties. Japanese soldiers after World War II were prosecuted by the United States for war crimes because of their use of waterboarding on American POWs.

Professional interrogators have known for decades that torture is the most ineffective and unreliable method of getting accurate information. People being tortured say anything to get the torture to end but will not likely tell the truth.

An FBI interrogator named Ali Soufan was able to get al Qaeda terrorist Abu Zubaydah to reveal crucial information without the use of torture. When CIA interrogators started using waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation methods, Zubaydah stopped cooperating and gave his interrogators false information.

Far from being necessary in the fight against terrorism, torture is completely unreliable and counter-productive in obtaining useful information.

0 notes

thedeadshotnetwork · 7 years ago

Link

Ralph Nader might have saved the Democratic Party The mere mention of Ralph Nader's 2000 campaign for president is enough to send most Democrats into a state of caterwauling rage. After all, Nader's presence on the ballot in Florida almost certainly narrowly cost Democratic nominee Al Gore the state and thus the election, and inflicted on America eight endless years of George W. Bush, a self-described "compassionate conservative" who turned out to be neither particularly compassionate nor particularly conservative (nor particularly adept at running the country). Nothing can ever change Nader's role in that election, nor can he ever be absolved of his share of the responsibility for the endless series of calamities that unfolded under Bush's misrule. Nader's contention that there was no meaningful difference between Gore and Bush was sharply, almost prophetically wrong. If I had a Ralph Nader voodoo doll, I would have put a pin it every day for the last 17 years and slept like a baby. But even I must concede that it's time for a reappraisal of Ralph Nader's place in history. Nader was more than just the spoiler in 2000. He was also likely responsible for placing Democrats on a long-term trajectory of moving back to the social-democratic space the party occupied during and after the New Deal, a position that helped mid-century Democrats eliminate political threats from far-left parties. Today's Democratic Party platform is eerily and unmistakably similar to Nader's set of signature issues, and credit must be given where credit is due. 2000 was Nader's second run for president. An activist most famous for his indictment of car safety in 1965's Unsafe At Any Speed (you can also thank Nader for, among many other things, getting vouchers when your flight is overbooked ) he first sought the presidency in 1996, received less than 1 percent of the vote, and wasn't even the most successful third-party candidate on the ballot — Ross Perot got over 8 million votes. But the general languor of Bill Clinton's second term, and the sense that Vice President Al Gore was insufficiently committed to making aggressive progressive policy created a completely different environment for Nader the next time around. Nader spoke to packed rallies full of true believers, refused to take part in what he called the corrupt campaign fundraising system, and boasted a roster of celebrities like Susan Sarandon who spoke on his behalf. Sound familiar? Indeed, 16 years before Bernie Sanders staked his Democratic primary campaign on a "Medicare For All" plan, Nader pushed for a Canadian-style reform of the American health-care system. Speaking to an audience in Philadelphia outside of the Republican National Convention on July 31, 2000, just months before the election, Nader argued forcefully that "the time is long overdue for Americans to join other Western countries and get universal health-care coverage. The best way to advance health care in this country is to get these giant corporations out of health care and replace them with nonprofit institutions." Gore, meanwhile, spoke mostly about preserving Medicare and incrementally increasing the number of people with insurance. Health care wasn't the only issue Nader was ahead of his time on. During the campaign he railed against the "criminal injustice system" at a time when national Democrats were still confident that their 1994 crime bill was responsible for bringing the rate of violent crime down rather than, as we know today, exploding the prison population and adding trillions to state and federal budgets. Nader's thinking on crime and prisons has slowly become the default conventional wisdom within the Democratic Party, albeit with a more explicitly woke anti-racist appeal than Nader made, with last year's nominee, Hillary Clinton, promising systemic reform to address racist policing practices and their disproportionate impact on minority communities. Nader was also the first national figure to endorse a financial transactions tax , which will be one of the most important tools future Democrats will use to pay for their expansive plans to extend the social safety net. While Democrats remained reflexively pro-trade into the Obama administration, Nader pushed for a renegotiation of NAFTA to strengthen labor protections. He called for a significantly higher minimum wage and European-style parental leave and daycare policies. Nader ultimately scored only 2.7 percent of the vote in 2000. He was completely oblivious about issues of race, gender, and sexuality that would evolve to be so critical to the contemporary Democratic coalition, and irritatingly read every single issue through the lens of social class. Though he publicly argued that he didn't care if Bush won, he could not, ultimately, have been happy that the race was so close that his voters appeared to cast the decisive ballots in Florida and poisoned the reputation of Nader and the Greens for a decade. The party hasn't even sniffed 1.5 percent of the presidential vote since. Political scientists have long wondered why the aggregate vote share of third parties declined over the course of the 20th century. Prior to the New Deal, it was not uncommon to have a significant number of third-party legislators in Congress, mostly from left organizations like the Progressive Party and the American Labor Party. In a 2007 article , political scientists Shigeo Hirano and James Snyder argued persuasively that it was the Democrats' sudden shift to the left under FDR that deprived these parties of their signature issues and thus led legislators to switch parties, voters to change their allegiance, and organized labor to support Democrats almost exclusively. That leftward tilt, and the elimination of third-party threats, helped the Democrats thoroughly dominate national politics from 1932 to 1968. The Democrats' move to the center starting in 1984 may have helped Bill Clinton win the presidency in 1992 — although it is important to note that Ross Perot's 18.9 percent of the vote was at least as important a factor — but abandoning their New Deal-era commitment to government interventionism seems, over time, to have cost the party the allegiance of millions of disillusioned leftist voters. Rumblings of dissatisfaction with the party's orientation have been obvious since at least 2003, when Howard Dean sought the nomination and claimed he was "from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." Barack Obama became the first Democrat since LBJ to unify economic and social progressives but watched a Republican Congress stymie any possibility of further change after 2010. And then last year, Bernie Sanders made Nader's arguments to an audience of millions of enraptured young people and progressives who wouldn't be able to pick Ralph Nader out of a lineup of two people. While Sanders was also a sometimes-awkward messenger for the party's message of racial and gender equality, his campaign represented progress on those issues for the economic left. Bernie's breakthrough also teaches us something else about third-party strategy in America: Railing against the two-party "duopoly," a staple of Green Party rhetoric from Nader to Jill Stein, is a dead end. The undertow of strategic voting — where voters will eventually settle on one of the major-party nominees to avoid wasting their votes — is impossible to swim against at the national level. Bernie Sanders was able to reach mainstream, center-left Democrats with his message, and to permanently change the conversation about health care and inequality, because he operated within the Democratic big tent rather than shivering in the cold outside it. Notwithstanding any lingering grievances generated by Clinton's loss, his standing with the public, including most Democrats, remains high because he endorsed and campaigned for Clinton after the primaries finally concluded. The Nation 's William Greider, in a 2000 endorsement of Nader , argued that "third-party presidential candidates do not attain power themselves, but they can move national politics in new directions if their message draws the kind of popular support that threatens the entrenched order." Whatever else you want to say about Ralph Nader, that he pushed the conversation in a new, progressive direction is at this point hardly disputable. The evidence is all around us. And in 2020, Democrats must once again find a candidate who appeals credibly to both economic and social progressives — and critically, can also speak the language of today's ascendant coalition of women, LGBTQ activists, and minorities as a first language. If that person can also carry a wave of progressive legislators into office, they may yet bring Nader's hopeful, long-ago vision to fruition, and heal the lingering fractures of 2016 — and 2000. November 28, 2017 at 02:10PM

#Blogger

0 notes