Jump to content


Republican Party


zoogs

Recommended Posts

Pat McCrory Lost the North Carolina Governorship. Now Hes Trying to Steal It.

 

North Carolina Republican Gov. Pat McCrory, champion of the country's most notorious anti-LGBTQ law, lost his bid for re-election on Nov. 8 at last count, by 7,448 votes. Yet nearly two weeks later, McCrory still refuses to concede. Instead, he and his legal team are baselessly alleging that the results were tainted by fraud, petitioning election boards to review the results and determine their validity. McCrory is not so obtuse as to think he can actually overtake his opponent, Democratic Attorney General Roy Cooper, in raw votes. His strategy is more insidious: He seems intent on delaying the formal declaration of a winner and delegitimizing the voting process in order to let the Republican-dominated legislature ignore the true result and re-install McCrory as governor for another four years.

He might even prevail.

Link to comment

  • 2 weeks later...

Hey- I can agree with all 3 of you - this is corruption, wrong, unethical and sour grapes to the max. (And Hell did not have to freeze over either :o )

 

One important note so as not to broad brush the 'Republican Party' as the OP title suggests: several republican county election boards, the repub control State Board of Elections - all refuse the governor's challenge.

More adequately stated the NC Repub Gov is corrupt. And if the state legislature certifies him the winner due to charges of 'fraud' or if it starts to pack the court, then include them in that description.

 

I wonder if this is what Trump had based his fraud tweet on from the other day.

Link to comment

I meant for this thread to be a catch-all of things Republican Party members are doing. You're correct that at a local level they are refusing the challenge.

 

Here's another thing the Republican Party has been doing, though: they blocked a sitting US president from nominating a judge to fill a SCOTUS vacancy occurring in the final year of his presidency. And they have succeeded. When it looked like they wouldn't, several prominent members promised to extend the blockade for another four years.

 

It's hard to find the right terms to express my dismay at this. They have, perhaps irreparable, damaged the standing of a cherished institution. Unless Trump nominates Merrick Garland once more, it will be impossible to

 

They started this before Trump. And it wasn't one guy.

 

Similarly, Voter ID restrictions -- that's not the story merely of 2016, or of North Carolina. I hope that makes it clear why I don't see these as one offs, but as part of a body of work.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

I meant for this thread to be a catch-all of things Republican Party members are doing. You're correct that at a local level they are refusing the challenge.

 

Here's another thing the Republican Party has been doing, though: they blocked a sitting US president from nominating a judge to fill a SCOTUS vacancy occurring in the final year of his presidency. And they have succeeded. When it looked like they wouldn't, several prominent members promised to extend the blockade for another four years.

 

It's hard to find the right terms to express my dismay at this. They have, perhaps irreparable, damaged the standing of a cherished institution. Unless Trump nominates Merrick Garland once more, it will be impossible to

 

They started this before Trump. And it wasn't one guy.

 

Similarly, Voter ID restrictions -- that's not the story merely of 2016, or of North Carolina. I hope that makes it clear why I don't see these as one offs, but as part of a body of work.

As they had a constitutional right to do so, I dont see the problem here?

Link to comment

 

I meant for this thread to be a catch-all of things Republican Party members are doing. You're correct that at a local level they are refusing the challenge.

 

Here's another thing the Republican Party has been doing, though: they blocked a sitting US president from nominating a judge to fill a SCOTUS vacancy occurring in the final year of his presidency. And they have succeeded. When it looked like they wouldn't, several prominent members promised to extend the blockade for another four years.

 

It's hard to find the right terms to express my dismay at this. They have, perhaps irreparable, damaged the standing of a cherished institution. Unless Trump nominates Merrick Garland once more, it will be impossible to

 

They started this before Trump. And it wasn't one guy.

 

Similarly, Voter ID restrictions -- that's not the story merely of 2016, or of North Carolina. I hope that makes it clear why I don't see these as one offs, but as part of a body of work.

As they had a constitutional right to do so, I dont see the problem here?

 

 

There's a difference between confirming a nomination and not even allowing the nominee to have a chance to be confirmed. It's not governance, nor how it is intended to work. If you don't see the problem in choosing not to do your job, then that says plenty.

 

The GOP has played obstruction politics for years now and then use the lack of progress as "evidence" that the other side is incompetent. They're not producing new ideas, strategies or policies to help make things better. The Dems haven't been perfect by any stretch, but in my opinion, trying to improve things is a helluva lot better than saying "everything sucks" and actively working against any kind of progress.

 

It's like doing a three legged race with someone who chooses to not to cooperate, lays down, trips you at any given opportunity and then they whine and blame you for not getting very far in the race.

  • Fire 3
Link to comment

I forgot to finish a paragraph! I meant to say it'll be awfully hard to view the next 9-member Court as legitimate, when Trump's nomination will be seen as taking a place that rightfully should have been awarded or at least considered before him.

 

The Constitution seems vague enough. But if that's their right, then it would be the Democrats' right to follow through and say we'll refuse to consider anybody until the next time they have power.

 

Treating the Court as political pinball may be a part of its history, but it harms its esteem. Ideally, every President and Congress work together to keep the Court balanced at all times and full of capable people. What happened this year was extraordinary.

 

And there's no sign where that will, or should end. I couldn't begrudge Democrats for refusing any of Trump's nominations until Garland hearings are held. Republicans shouldn't get to contravene norms so grossly, get away with it, and then turn around and say "OK, those norms exist again." If they had considered and confirmed Garland (capable judge that he is), this would be a different story; it would much more universally seen as fine, it's the Republicans' turn, but we'll put pressure to make sure the person is of suitable caliber.

 

An LA Times editorial makes a lengthier case for this.

Link to comment

Ideally, what a wonderful thought.

 

Democrats have blocked SC nominees before while in control, Bork comes to mind, this is no different

How can you possibly think Bork is in any way similar to what is happening now? Reagan nominated another person for the same seat. Heard of Anthony Kennedy?

 

 

People who argue this crap need to look inwardly and think how they'd feel if the other "side" did it. If the Democrats did it, you'd think it was wrong. Because it's wrong no matter who does it.

  • Fire 2
Link to comment

 

Ideally, what a wonderful thought.

 

Democrats have blocked SC nominees before while in control, Bork comes to mind, this is no different

How can you possibly think Bork is in any way similar to what is happening now? Reagan nominated another person for the same seat. Heard of Anthony Kennedy?

 

 

People who argue this crap need to look inwardly and think how they'd feel if the other "side" did it. If the Democrats did it, you'd think it was wrong. Because it's wrong no matter who does it.

 

The dems strongly opposed Bork, used every avenue to do so, didn't have the numbers and lost. Now, while not even having a hearing on Garland, which is extreme imo, the repubs are using the same mechanisms to keep out a nominee they dont want.

Link to comment

Garland isn't a nominee they don't want. "Anybody nominated by President Obama to replace Scalia" is a nominee they didn't want.

 

There's not even implied responsibility to confirm anybody that a President might nominate. That's different from pre-emptively denying a President consideration, and you can bet the same tactic will be pulled with the shoe on the other foot in the future.

 

Bork's nomination is perhaps more comparable to that of Harriet Miers, in that political opposition over the choice led eventually to an alternative nomination that was confirmed.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...