Jump to content


What is the future of the Republican Party?


Recommended Posts


42 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

They were the first to have their own ideological news outlet, not the dems.

CNN disagrees

 

 

43 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

They were the first to suggest narratives of the other side's leaders were illegitimate (birth certificate muslim B.S.), not the dems.

Bush and the 2000 election disagree

  • Plus1 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

CNN disagrees

 

CNN is still, in 2021, not equivalent to Fox News in terms of ideological partisanship, and was even less so 15 years ago.

 

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Bush and the 2000 election disagree

 

 

The Florida recount was automatically triggered by Florida's state laws due to the margin being narrow enough, then Gore requested a manual recount in 4 counties (which was perfectly legal and allowed by Florida's state law), while the Bush campaign's lawyers sued to stop the recount, then the Florida Supreme Court stayed a decision to certify the results without the recount, then the United States Supreme Court granted Bush's plea, and Gore conceded the election. 

 

Gore and the Democrats never once peddled a narrative of Bush being an illegitimate President. 

  • Plus1 4
  • Haha 2
Link to comment

1 minute ago, Lorewarn said:

CNN is still, in 2021, not equivalent to Fox News in terms of ideological partisanship, and was even less so 15 years ago.

 

It's a bad-faith analogy, but it's the only kind of analogy they have in defense of their news.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

Gore and the Democrats never once peddled a narrative of Bush being an illegitimate President. 

 

And another bad-faith analogy.

 

 

 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

 

The Florida recount was automatically triggered by Florida's state laws due to the margin being narrow enough, then Gore requested a manual recount in 4 counties (which was perfectly legal and allowed by Florida's state law), while the Bush campaign's lawyers sued to stop the recount, then the Florida Supreme Court stayed a decision to certify the results without the recount, then the United States Supreme Court granted Bush's plea, and Gore conceded the election. 

 

Gore and the Democrats never once peddled a narrative of Bush being an illegitimate President. 

I’m not speaking of  recount.  I’m speaking of all the Democrats insisting Bush wasn’t a legitimate President because of the election 

11 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

It's a bad-faith analogy, but it's the only kind of analogy they have in defense of their news.

 

 

 

And another bad-faith analogy.

 

 

 

It’s not and it’s not.  

  • Plus1 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

I’m not speaking of  recount.  I’m speaking of all the Democrats insisting Bush wasn’t a legitimate President because of the election 

 

I was about to start looking for a new fantasy book to start reading, but I got my fix reading this instead.

  • Plus1 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment

I have been sitting at a funeral visitation since about 3. I want to say sorry to those of you who assumed that my previous post meant that I believe Dems started the hyper-partisanship 5 years ago. They did not start it any more than Reps did. There was not nearly the issue in the 8 years under Obama than what it became in 4 years under Trump. My point was that the constant onslaught about Trump, and his "deplorable" voters fanned the flames to a conflagration. It has now gotten to the point the Trump followers will never back down or backtrack, because Trump pushed and pushed and they reciprocated.  

 

Hearing everyday that you are stupid or criminal does not lend itself to concessions very often.

Link to comment

2 hours ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

Apologies, I meant Biden.

 

My original post was making an argument that Trump will win election, if he chooses to run.  The systemic advantages - which are growing - mean Democrats are likely to be uncompetitive in future Presidential elections.

He likely would have won this time, were it not for covid. I am glad he didn't. 

 

As to your argument against the EC, I have come around...somewhat...to a straight popular vote, but for President only.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

Hyperpartizanship is mainly driven by educational attainment today.

 

People with educations tend to see the world one way - full of inequality, they fear climate change, and are more liberal than ever. 

 

People without college educations distrust what they perceive to be elites. Elites are elected officials, the wealthy, institutions, etc. They often distrust those with college educations. Voters like this are trending towards being more and more conservative. 

In general possibly, but not hard fast divisions.

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

WHAT????

 

Trump himself is 110% hyper partisan and adds fuel to the fire every time he speaks. . 

Agreed, and I added comments now. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Lorewarn said:

 

 

I doubt there's anything that would change your mind on this but it's just not true. A lot of factors are not due to either party, some are equally due to both, and plenty lay at the feet of the Republican party.

 

Every step along the way of partisanship the last 12-15 years, the right got there first. They were the first to have their own ideological news outlet, not the dems. They were the first to vow to make their #1 mission to obstruct the president and get him out of office, not the dems. They were the first to suggest narratives of the other side's leaders were illegitimate (birth certificate muslim B.S.), not the dems. They were the first to rile up their base with outright lies and double speak on non-existent issues (The War on Christmas, immigrants are taking yer jerbs, Obama's gonna take yer guns, global warming is a hoax). At best, both sides are equal in their "The fate of America is on the line" rhetoric, but only one side elected someone who routinely tried to take a sledgehammer to the norms and trust of our democratic system. They're the ones unjustly gerrymandering districts to retain/obtain disproportionate power. They're also the side full of people calling the press the enemy of the people, popularizing terms like "fake news", and denying results of our electoral process.

Thanks. Some of this we actually agree on.

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

He doesn’t think Trump won.  That’s your first problem. Your second problem is assuming he doesn’t know how elections work.  

True and yes.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Lorewarn said:

 

I was about to start looking for a new fantasy book to start reading, but I got my fix reading this instead.

You are of the opinion that Democrats did not think Bush was legitimately elected and that they said the SCOTUS was unfair and Mr. “$200 million I’m in it for climate change..errrr money” Gore should have been President. Yes you must be reading fantasy books then.  

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

You are of the opinion that Democrats did not think Bush was legitimately elected and that they said the SCOTUS was unfair and Mr. “$200 million I’m in it for climate change..errrr money” Gore should have been President. Yes you must be reading fantasy books then.  

confirmed trump supporter.   

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...