What is the future of the Republican Party?

[BigRedBuster]

9 hours ago, Scarlet said:

Why do you think it is that they won't condemn her considering she's not a rising star, wields no power, and doesn't speak to the base?  

 

41 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

They explain that in the article. This is a quote from it. It covers the face that she doesn't have power, or speak for the base, and yet R leaders have yet to censure her...and the dichotomy of that.

Yep.  Pretty pathetic.

 

 

Quote

 

Why won't Republican leaders take any sort of actionable stand against Greene? Because to do so would run the risk of putting them at odds with the base of the GOP and its leader -- former President Donald Trump.

See, Greene (like Florida's Matt Gaetz and North Carolina's Madison Cawthorn, among others) are the offspring of Trump's political revolution. They seek out controversy. They say wild -- and wildly offensive -- things to "own the libs." And the base responds -- sending millions of dollars their way -- as they are further fêted by conservative media outlets for their anti-woke messaging.

Which makes the likes of McCarthy very nervous. Because he wants to be speaker if Republicans win back the House next November, and he knows the only way he does it is with the base liking (if not loving) him. And so, he sits silently when words (and actions) are very necessary.

The question McCarthy and his fellow Republican leaders have to ask themselves at this point is this: Is it worth leading a party that stands for nothing outside of total and utter loyalty to a single man -- and which is unwilling to strongly condemn clear intolerance and ignorance? Is leading that empty shell leadership at all?

 

And....this is EXACTLY why saying Greene (and others like her) are the future of the party.  Until leadership does something to change the path, this is what it's going to be.  @Archy1221

[Archy1221]

13 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Yep.  Pretty pathetic.

 

 

And....this is EXACTLY why saying Greene (and others like her) are the future of the party.  Until leadership does something to change the path, this is what it's going to be.  @Archy1221

No

[funhusker]

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

You not being able to comprehend is a you problem.  

I wouldn't call it much of a conversation either.  And I'm supposed to be involved...

 

You have posted two links with no comment and have failed to answer a direct question.

 

I don't really care if the "conversation" continues or not.  I only have the next few minutes free for the rest of the day anyway.  

 

Have a good one 

[Archy1221]

2 hours ago, funhusker said:

I wouldn't call it much of a conversation either.  And I'm supposed to be involved...

 

You have posted two links with no comment and have failed to answer a direct question.

 

I don't really care if the "conversation" continues or not.  I only have the next few minutes free for the rest of the day anyway.  

 

Have a good one 

  

The links covered the answer you were looking for.   Sorry you didn’t figure that out.  State Supreme Courts changed perfectly legal election laws.  That’s not their responsibility.  There you go. 

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, Archy1221 said:

  

The links covered the answer you were looking for.   Sorry you didn’t figure that out.  State Supreme Courts changed perfectly legal election laws.  That’s not their responsibility.  There you go. 

[Archy1221]

2 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Your source is where exactly? 

[RedDenver]

Just now, Archy1221 said:

Your source is where exactly? 

The links covered the answer you were looking for.   Sorry you didn’t figure that out.  State Supreme Courts upheld perfectly legal election laws.  That’s their responsibility.  There you go. 

[Archy1221]

2 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

The links covered the answer you were looking for.   Sorry you didn’t figure that out.  State Supreme Courts upheld perfectly legal election laws.  That’s their responsibility.  There you go. 

The PA state Supreme Court changed the timeframe fro when ballots could be received by.  Surely you are just be silly at this point 

[DevoHusker]

 

 

[knapplc]

2 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

 

 

 

 

Wow! She's going to be reeling from that harsh reprimand for days! 

[DevoHusker]

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

 

Wow! She's going to be reeling from that harsh reprimand for days! 

 

I wish someone would just grow a pair and kick her to the curb.

[TGHusker]

5 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

 

 

We have a tail wagging the dog.  The extremists rule the GOP as the leadership is too fearful of responding as they should. 

 

Of course, the real story could be that  - MTG is really the dog - representing the heart of the majority of the party. 

[funhusker]

19 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

  

The links covered the answer you were looking for.   Sorry you didn’t figure that out.  State Supreme Courts changed perfectly legal election laws.  That’s not their responsibility.  There you go. 

Did the Pennsylvania Supreme Court change the wording of Act 77?

 

Or did they make a ruling about the specific situation using the interpretation of Act 77 along with other laws allowing the extension of voting periods in times of natural disasters?

 

The ruling that was linked in WSJ article explains what they did pretty well.  I think it was in the pages 26-30 range where they noted precedence and how other laws were used to allow the 3 day grace period that was requested by the plaintiffs.  

[RedDenver]

26 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

The PA state Supreme Court changed the timeframe fro when ballots could be received by.  Surely you are just be silly at this point 

Incorrect. No laws were changed. Surely you're just being silly if you still think that.

 

The PA Election Commission used their authority to change the time frame. The question before the court was whether they had the authority to do that under the law - and the court ruled it was allowed under the law. You know, doing exactly what courts were designed to do: resolve questions about interpretations of the law.

[knapplc]