[Split Thread] A second impeachment - Page 28

DevilsAdvocate · Yesterday, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by dirtywick

i think mitch knows that in 4 years trump has cost the GOP both houses of congress and the presidency. i'd be surprised if he felt there was something to gain by protecting him and keeping his leadership of the party intact.

I've been saying for a couple months that it looks like McConnell is setting things up to reconstruct the Republican party without anything Trump. I think he hates Trump, even if he has found him sometimes a useful tool. But the is glad to be rid of him. That was most apparent when McConnell congratulated Biden and Harris on their victory and then gave one of his rare little creepy smiles.

McConnell wants to kick the crazy to the curb, or at least back to the fringe, and restore his Grand Old Party. That starts with Trump. He want to convict and prevent Trump from running again. With that, he would be out of the party, for good.

Trying to kick him out of office would have been difficult. McConnell would have had to take specific actions. He probably didn't have enough Republican Senators on board for that, even though some of them would be on board with conviction after he is out of office. It could have resulted in a big backlash. McConnell wants to reform the party, not destroy it.

Since he is publicly accusing Trump of being responsible for the riot but not actually calling for conviction on the impeachment charges, it means either he doesn't have the votes locked for conviction yet or he wants to remain noncommittal until he gets the articles from the House. That may take some time. Pelosi may want to make sure Biden can get in a new Cabinet and other positions and manage covid issues, because that is most important. And wait for more evidence to roll in to make a stronger case.

Skeptic Ginger · Yesterday, 10:21 PM

Originally Posted by dirtywick

i think mitch knows that in 4 years trump has cost the GOP both houses of congress and the presidency. i'd be surprised if he felt there was something to gain by protecting him and keeping his leadership of the party intact.

It's all about the base, not about Trump. In two years when the Democrats have a chance to increase their strength in the House and the Senate, McConnell will need that base to push the Democrats back.

Right at the moment McConnell is negotiating with Schumer and hoping to lull Schumer into a false sense of security that McConnell is done screwing the Democrats. But McConnell started screwing the Democrats in earnest when he vowed to make Obama a one term POTUS.

I hope Schumer knows better that to trust McConnell has changed in any significant way.

alfaniner · Yesterday, 10:23 PM

The PDJT himself is talking about forming a new party, the Patriot Party.

The Great Zaganza · Yesterday, 10:28 PM

The P-Party ?

rdaneel · Yesterday, 10:36 PM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

The P-Party ?

Oh, please, please, please please, let Trump not realise that until to late.

bruto · Yesterday, 10:40 PM

Originally Posted by alfaniner

The PDJT himself is talking about forming a new party, the Patriot Party.

I would expect that to split the Republican party pretty nastily, with the GOP losing the loyal T**** base, enough to guarantee further losses without enough in the Patriot party to win much of anything. If nothing else, though, I'd expect that as soon as T**** takes his base away from the Republican Party, there would be that much less reason for McConnell and his cronies to pander to them, so I'm guessing it's more of a blackmail threat: if you vote to convict I'll pick up my dollies and go home.

dirtywick · Yesterday, 11:02 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

It's all about the base, not about Trump. In two years when the Democrats have a chance to increase their strength in the House and the Senate, McConnell will need that base to push the Democrats back.

Right at the moment McConnell is negotiating with Schumer and hoping to lull Schumer into a false sense of security that McConnell is done screwing the Democrats. But McConnell started screwing the Democrats in earnest when he vowed to make Obama a one term POTUS.

I hope Schumer knows better that to trust McConnell has changed in any significant way.

in 4 years they lost both houses and the presidency so i'm not even sure trump's base is making up for moderates and independants jumping ship. he hasn't won them anything. even best case, i'm sure mcconnell doesn't want a handful full of qanon senators in 2022 and beyond

mcconnell doesn't have to change, this is what's good for mcconnell

Segnosaur · Yesterday, 11:22 PM

Originally Posted by dirtywick

Quote:

It's all about the base, not about Trump. In two years when the Democrats have a chance to increase their strength in the House and the Senate, McConnell will need that base to push the Democrats back.

in 4 years they lost both houses and the presidency so i'm not even sure trump's base is making up for moderates and independants jumping ship. he hasn't won them anything.

True, Trump's appeal to is base core support didn't overcome the loss of moderates. But that doesn't necessarily mean they can risk alienating the MAGAchuds either (given how slim the margins are).

The republicans best hope (if they want power) is to not impeach (thus not alienating the MAGAchud, and hope that Trump doesn't run in 2024 (either because he is in jail for some fraud he's committed, or because he died of a cheeseburger overdose) so that they can select a candidate who is, well, not Trump (and thus won't drive away the moderate voters), but is right-wing enough to keep the MAGAchud willing to vote republican.

Quote:

even best case, i'm sure mcconnell doesn't want a handful full of qanon senators in 2022 and beyond

mcconnell doesn't have to change, this is what's good for mcconnell

I don't think Moscow Mitch cares how many Q-Anon senators he has in the republican party, as long as there are more republican senators than democratic senators. (I mean, he'd probably prefer a well-healed Republican, but any republican is better than a democrat if it means more power for him.)

EHocking · Today, 12:01 AM

Originally Posted by rdaneel

Oh, please, please, please please, let Trump not realise that until to late.

It may be a deliberate tip of the hat to his Russian controllers?
Wee kno he has a peenchant for pee pee.

dasmiller · Today, 06:28 AM

Originally Posted by alfaniner

The PDJT himself is talking about forming a new party, the Patriot Party.

(hilite mine)

As Inigo said,

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

(not directed towards alfaniner)

turingtest · Today, 06:42 AM

Originally Posted by alfaniner

The PDJT himself is talking about forming a new party, the Patriot Party.

Originally Posted by bruto

I would expect that to split the Republican party pretty nastily, with the GOP losing the loyal T**** base, enough to guarantee further losses without enough in the Patriot party to win much of anything. If nothing else, though, I'd expect that as soon as T**** takes his base away from the Republican Party, there would be that much less reason for McConnell and his cronies to pander to them, so I'm guessing it's more of a blackmail threat: if you vote to convict I'll pick up my dollies and go home.

With any luck, that will be the outcome, the deplorables will join Trump in his PP tee-pee; to adapt the old LBJ adage, a small tent with a crowd whose whole purpose is to be people pissing out.

dasmiller · Today, 06:53 AM

Originally Posted by turingtest

With any luck, that will be the outcome, the deplorables will join Trump in his PP tee-pee; to adapt the old LBJ adage, a small tent with a crowd whose whole purpose is to be people pissing out.

I know it sounds good for the rest of us to have the Republican party split like that, but I'm not sure it is. To me, the P-Party sounds like Tea Party Version 1.1. Instead of being an actual separate party, the P-Party may just be unionizing the crazier side of the Republican Party to give them a stronger voice in Republican politics.

turingtest · Today, 07:10 AM

Originally Posted by dasmiller

I know it sounds good for the rest of us to have the Republican party split like that, but I'm not sure it is. To me, the P-Party sounds like Tea Party Version 1.1. Instead of being an actual separate party, the P-Party may just be unionizing the crazier side of the Republican Party to give them a stronger voice in Republican politics.

That's a good point. I guess what I'm hoping is that the GOP will learn a lesson from the 2020 election, that appealing to that crazier base is no guarantee of a win, and that they will themselves move to marginalize them as unnecessary; it may be something like this that McConnell is thinking of when he says he's considering voting to convict Trump on the impeachment article, as a sort of strategic (if not principled) exorcism. I've never been a fan of the GOP, but they were, at one time, a responsible conservative party, and I think at least two responsible parties are a necessity for a working democracy.

Dave Rogers · Today, 07:17 AM

Originally Posted by turingtest

[…]to adapt the old LBJ adage, a small tent with a crowd whose whole purpose is to be people pissing out.

...but who are all, inexplicably, facing in the wrong direction.

Dave

turingtest · Today, 07:21 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

...but who are all, inexplicably, facing in the wrong direction.

Dave

Ha! Yeah, but maybe not so inexplicable when you consider the mental caliber involved.

Delvo · Today, 07:27 AM

People who prefer one party are always too quick to predict the other's fracturing (or demise by other means). But it would actually be bad for the Democrats if the Republicans did fall apart.

Both parties are divided, but one of the major factions in each case is the same: the corporate bribe-takers whose real job there, as assigned to them by their real employers, is to make sure that as much money as possible keeps flowing up from the peasants to their corporate masters. Take away this crowd's support & influence in the Republican Party and it'll still be around, just more in the other party instead. The influx to the "Democrats" will help that party "win" against Republicans, but it will shift the party's own internal division even more in favor of the faction that was already just like one of the Republican factions anyway.

dasmiller · Today, 07:42 AM

Originally Posted by turingtest

I've never been a fan of the GOP, but they were, at one time, a responsible conservative party, and I think at least two responsible parties are a necessity for a working democracy.

I don't consider myself a Democrat, but I've been a functional Democrat (at the national level) for many years now because the Republicans have gone kinda crazy. I'd much prefer to be choosing between two decent, responsible parties. Currently, I find myself choosing between, "Eh, maybe," and "Oh, God, not that!"

I remember being very pleased about the 2008 Presidential election because I liked both McCain and Obama*. I think that's how our elections should always be, and I'd be thrilled to see the U.S. get back to that.

*Neither were perfect, and I can point out things that I consider serious lapses by both of them. But I don't think it's realistic to expect un-flawed candidates. Or people in general.

bruto · Today, 07:44 AM

I don't want one party. I just want mine to keep winning.

The Great Zaganza · Today, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by Delvo

People who prefer one party are always too quick to predict the other's fracturing (or demise by other means). But it would actually be bad for the Democrats if the Republicans did fall apart.

Both parties are divided, but one of the major factions in each case is the same: the corporate bribe-takers whose real job there, as assigned to them by their real employers, is to make sure that as much money as possible keeps flowing up from the peasants to their corporate masters. Take away this crowd's support & influence in the Republican Party and it'll still be around, just more in the other party instead. The influx to the "Democrats" will help that party "win" against Republicans, but it will shift the party's own internal division even more in favor of the faction that was already just like one of the Republican factions anyway.

The GOP had no issue subsuming the Tea Party.
Everyone of the Trumpistas will either rejoin the Party or become disillusioned with politics altogether.

Dave Rogers · Today, 08:40 AM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

The GOP had no issue subsuming the Tea Party.

Really? Aren't they more or less the same people as Trump's hardcore supporters?

Dave

The Great Zaganza · Today, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Really? Aren't they more or less the same people as Trump's hardcore supporters?

Dave

you are illustrating my point nicely.

SuburbanTurkey · Today, 08:51 AM

I too wonder about the sincerity of this Trump third party. The reality of American politics is that splitting means both fragments become irrelevant. Voting rules vary by locality in this country, but a split in the conservative wing would often mean victory for Democrats with less than a majority, while losses for both conservative parties that together may have been the majority of voters.

I could easily see Trump launching a more combative pseudo-party within the Republican party, very much like the Tea Party. They might challenge traditional conservatives in primaries and try to throw their weight around as a block-vote, should they achieve enough victories for this to be effective.

Dr. Keith · Today, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by No Other

Can you enlighten me and tell me what I thought?

Now that I've caught up a bit on the thread: no. I can not see the you have actually expressed anything of interest, whereas it seemed from those initial posts you actually were heading for an obvious point. My apologies for making the assumption that you had something to say. Won't happen again.

JoeMorgue · Today, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I too wonder about the sincerity of this Trump third party. The reality of American politics is that splitting means both fragments become irrelevant. Voting rules vary by locality in this country, but a split in the conservative wing would often mean victory for Democrats with less than a majority, while losses for both conservative parties that together may have been the majority of voters.

Not to pick on you directly, but the exact same thing the Progressives hope to accomplish in regards to your hated "Centrists."

No the Progressive Wing of the Democratic Party knows full well it can't stand against the GOP without the more moderate old guard folks. "Well we'll just form our own party!" is a threat hoping to get more power and influence within the party.

Nobody who threatens to take their ball and go home really wants the game to end or the teams they change. They just want to be coach instead of the 3rd baseman.

SuburbanTurkey · Today, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Not to pick on you directly, but the exact same thing the Progressives hope to accomplish in regards to your hated "Centrists."

No the Progressive Wing of the Democratic Party knows full well it can't stand against the GOP without the more moderate old guard folks. "Well we'll just form our own party!" is a threat hoping to get more power and influence within the party.

Nobody who threatens to take their ball and go home really wants the game to end or the teams they change. They just want to be coach instead of the 3rd baseman.

Sure, I wasn't saying it's a bad thing. You can say a lot of negative things about the Tea Party (mostly that they were just a thinly veiled racist backlash to Obama), but you can't say the tactics didn't work.

Compare that to the Libertarian party, a third party with a long history of mostly no electoral accomplishment.

The progressives aren't a third party because they want to actually have a chance to accomplish something. The Tea Party revolution showed that working from within the party, through primary challenges and forming a sub-party within the party, is the practical route.

Trump is talking about forming a true third party, by some reports. It's a hopeless endeavor, unless enough conservatives leave that they become the new home of the majority of conservatives.

There's already a core of politicians that could form the MAGA sub party within the Republican party. The Q congresspeople, the recent MAGA types, etc. Seems Trump's political ambitions would probably be better served just forming a camp within the camp rather than a true third party.

Dave Rogers · Today, 09:25 AM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

you are illustrating my point nicely.

No, I don't think I am. I think the Tea Party was never actually subsumed, but remained a separate enclave in the Republican Party, which Trump stepped in to take control of; and now he's considering splitting off with them to form a new party. The fact that this hasn't happened yet is a rather poor argument for it being unlikely to happen in the future.

Dave

The Great Zaganza · Today, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

No, I don't think I am. I think the Tea Party was never actually subsumed, but remained a separate enclave in the Republican Party, which Trump stepped in to take control of; and now he's considering splitting off with them to form a new party. The fact that this hasn't happened yet is a rather poor argument for it being unlikely to happen in the future.

Dave

oh really?
then why did we not hear a beep from the 'fiscal conservatives' during the Trump years?
No, the Tea Party might have caused the GOP to move to the irresponsible Right, but it is no longer an identifiable caucus.

turingtest · Today, 09:39 AM

Originally Posted by dasmiller

I don't consider myself a Democrat, but I've been a functional Democrat (at the national level) for many years now because the Republicans have gone kinda crazy. I'd much prefer to be choosing between two decent, responsible parties. Currently, I find myself choosing between, "Eh, maybe," and "Oh, God, not that!"

I remember being very pleased about the 2008 Presidential election because I liked both McCain and Obama*. I think that's how our elections should always be, and I'd be thrilled to see the U.S. get back to that.

*Neither were perfect, and I can point out things that I consider serious lapses by both of them. But I don't think it's realistic to expect un-flawed candidates. Or people in general.

Agreed, and nothing about 2012 even really sticks out in my mind for the sort of rancor we've seen since. We went in just those few short years from McCain's (referring to Obama)

Quote:

He is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as President, If I didn’t think I’d be one heck of a better President I wouldn’t be running, and that’s the point. I admire Sen. Obama and his accomplishments, I will respect him. I want everyone to be respectful, and let’s make sure we are. Because that’s the way politics should be conducted in America.

to Trump's "you'll be in jail" and leading chants of "lock her up!" against Clinton.

No Other · Today, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

Now that I've caught up a bit on the thread: no. I can not see the you have actually expressed anything of interest, whereas it seemed from those initial posts you actually were heading for an obvious point. My apologies for making the assumption that you had something to say. Won't happen again.

Snide comment noticed and understood. What you and some others fail to grasp is that this site is a Skeptics site and not just an opinion forum.

wareyin · Today, 10:09 AM

Originally Posted by Delvo

People who prefer one party are always too quick to predict the other's fracturing (or demise by other means). But it would actually be bad for the Democrats if the Republicans did fall apart.

Both parties are divided, but one of the major factions in each case is the same: the corporate bribe-takers whose real job there, as assigned to them by their real employers, is to make sure that as much money as possible keeps flowing up from the peasants to their corporate masters. Take away this crowd's support & influence in the Republican Party and it'll still be around, just more in the other party instead. The influx to the "Democrats" will help that party "win" against Republicans, but it will shift the party's own internal division even more in favor of the faction that was already just like one of the Republican factions anyway.

Can you explain how if both parties are already the same (your assertion) , one of the two identical parties fracturing would be bad for the remaining party? Seems to me that a fracture would actually create a party that is actually different from the 2 parties you claim are the same now, thus creating actual competition.

Of course, not many of us think the 2 parties are the same. In fact, you previously claimed that the US would be better re-electing Trump, which certainly implies that you also don't think both parties are just like each other. Hmmm, a quandary.

The Great Zaganza · Today, 10:23 AM

It's far more likely that the Democrats will split ... and that might not be a bad thing for them.

SuburbanTurkey · Today, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

oh really?
then why did we not hear a beep from the 'fiscal conservatives' during the Trump years?
No, the Tea Party might have caused the GOP to move to the irresponsible Right, but it is no longer an identifiable caucus.

Because it was never about fiscal conservatism.

We heard a lot about increasingly open white nationalism from the tea party turned MAGA block, and that's really what they were always about. Fiscal restraint was just useful PR for their obstinance to the Obama administration.

Aridas · Today, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

oh really?
then why did we not hear a beep from the 'fiscal conservatives' during the Trump years?
No, the Tea Party might have caused the GOP to move to the irresponsible Right, but it is no longer an identifiable caucus.

To poke at this... We did? The Tea Party was one of the notable factors that prevented the Republicans from actually getting anything of note done while the Republicans had the House in the first 2 years, then faced irrelevance when Democrats had the majority in the House, so they simply don't get much attention now... because of their current irrelevance and because Trump's been hogging the news space. They haven't gone away, at last check.

As SuburbanTurkey notes, though, it was only ever really about fiscal conservatism superficially. That was a rallying cry, but it very quickly became evident that that's not what they were actually about.

Mader Levap · Today, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I too wonder about the sincerity of this Trump third party. The reality of American politics is that splitting means both fragments become irrelevant.

I could see Trump doing that - as retaliation on republicans for inssuficiently supporting his coup efforts. In this case, that third party never was intended to win anything, just drag republicans down with them.

Unfortunately, it is kinda unlikely.

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

It's far more likely that the Democrats will split ... and that might not be a bad thing for them.

They will split only if republicans cease to exist somehow. It would be nice to have actually lefty party in USA, though. It is also kinda unlikely.

Dr. Keith · Today, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by No Other

Snide comment noticed and understood.

I doubt it.

Quote:

What you and some others fail to grasp is that this site is a Skeptics site and not just an opinion forum.

And now you are telling me what I understand? Please do elaborate.

Yesterday, 10:17 PM	#1081
DevilsAdvocate Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,282	Originally Posted by dirtywick i think mitch knows that in 4 years trump has cost the GOP both houses of congress and the presidency. i'd be surprised if he felt there was something to gain by protecting him and keeping his leadership of the party intact. I've been saying for a couple months that it looks like McConnell is setting things up to reconstruct the Republican party without anything Trump. I think he hates Trump, even if he has found him sometimes a useful tool. But the is glad to be rid of him. That was most apparent when McConnell congratulated Biden and Harris on their victory and then gave one of his rare little creepy smiles. McConnell wants to kick the crazy to the curb, or at least back to the fringe, and restore his Grand Old Party. That starts with Trump. He want to convict and prevent Trump from running again. With that, he would be out of the party, for good. Trying to kick him out of office would have been difficult. McConnell would have had to take specific actions. He probably didn't have enough Republican Senators on board for that, even though some of them would be on board with conviction after he is out of office. It could have resulted in a big backlash. McConnell wants to reform the party, not destroy it. Since he is publicly accusing Trump of being responsible for the riot but not actually calling for conviction on the impeachment charges, it means either he doesn't have the votes locked for conviction yet or he wants to remain noncommittal until he gets the articles from the House. That may take some time. Pelosi may want to make sure Biden can get in a new Cabinet and other positions and manage covid issues, because that is most important. And wait for more evidence to roll in to make a stronger case.
	__________________ I don't need to fight to prove I'm right. - Baba O'Riley

Yesterday, 10:21 PM	#1082
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 85,798	Originally Posted by dirtywick i think mitch knows that in 4 years trump has cost the GOP both houses of congress and the presidency. i'd be surprised if he felt there was something to gain by protecting him and keeping his leadership of the party intact. It's all about the base, not about Trump. In two years when the Democrats have a chance to increase their strength in the House and the Senate, McConnell will need that base to push the Democrats back. Right at the moment McConnell is negotiating with Schumer and hoping to lull Schumer into a false sense of security that McConnell is done screwing the Democrats. But McConnell started screwing the Democrats in earnest when he vowed to make Obama a one term POTUS. I hope Schumer knows better that to trust McConnell has changed in any significant way.
	__________________ Trump lost and he knows it.

Yesterday, 10:23 PM	#1083
alfaniner Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 24,569	The PDJT himself is talking about forming a new party, the Patriot Party.
	__________________ Science is self-correcting. Woo is self-contradicting.

Yesterday, 10:28 PM	#1084
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 14,344	The P-Party ?
	__________________ Ceterum autem censeo fox et amicis esse delendam.

Yesterday, 10:36 PM	#1085
rdaneel Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: I'M IN THE PHONEBOOK! I'M SOMEBODY!!! Posts: 4,207	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza The P-Party ? Oh, please, please, please please, let Trump not realise that until to late.
	__________________ "Let me guess, my theories appall you, my heresies outrage you, I never answer letters, and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor "I heard some things I can't prove from someone I don't know, and God dammit, that's enough for me." - Penny Arcade "Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from Science!" - Agatha Heterodyne

Yesterday, 10:40 PM	#1086
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 27,244	Originally Posted by alfaniner The PDJT himself is talking about forming a new party, the Patriot Party. I would expect that to split the Republican party pretty nastily, with the GOP losing the loyal T** base, enough to guarantee further losses without enough in the Patriot party to win much of anything. If nothing else, though, I'd expect that as soon as T** takes his base away from the Republican Party, there would be that much less reason for McConnell and his cronies to pander to them, so I'm guessing it's more of a blackmail threat: if you vote to convict I'll pick up my dollies and go home.
	__________________ I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver) Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)

Yesterday, 11:02 PM	#1087
dirtywick Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 2,857	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger It's all about the base, not about Trump. In two years when the Democrats have a chance to increase their strength in the House and the Senate, McConnell will need that base to push the Democrats back. Right at the moment McConnell is negotiating with Schumer and hoping to lull Schumer into a false sense of security that McConnell is done screwing the Democrats. But McConnell started screwing the Democrats in earnest when he vowed to make Obama a one term POTUS. I hope Schumer knows better that to trust McConnell has changed in any significant way. in 4 years they lost both houses and the presidency so i'm not even sure trump's base is making up for moderates and independants jumping ship. he hasn't won them anything. even best case, i'm sure mcconnell doesn't want a handful full of qanon senators in 2022 and beyond mcconnell doesn't have to change, this is what's good for mcconnell
dirtywick Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 2,857

Yesterday, 11:22 PM	#1088
Segnosaur Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 16,842	Originally Posted by dirtywick Quote: It's all about the base, not about Trump. In two years when the Democrats have a chance to increase their strength in the House and the Senate, McConnell will need that base to push the Democrats back. in 4 years they lost both houses and the presidency so i'm not even sure trump's base is making up for moderates and independants jumping ship. he hasn't won them anything. True, Trump's appeal to is base core support didn't overcome the loss of moderates. But that doesn't necessarily mean they can risk alienating the MAGAchuds either (given how slim the margins are). The republicans best hope (if they want power) is to not impeach (thus not alienating the MAGAchud, and hope that Trump doesn't run in 2024 (either because he is in jail for some fraud he's committed, or because he died of a cheeseburger overdose) so that they can select a candidate who is, well, not Trump (and thus won't drive away the moderate voters), but is right-wing enough to keep the MAGAchud willing to vote republican. Quote: even best case, i'm sure mcconnell doesn't want a handful full of qanon senators in 2022 and beyond mcconnell doesn't have to change, this is what's good for mcconnell I don't think Moscow Mitch cares how many Q-Anon senators he has in the republican party, as long as there are more republican senators than democratic senators. (I mean, he'd probably prefer a well-healed Republican, but any republican is better than a democrat if it means more power for him.)
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu We are Groot - Groot

Today, 12:01 AM	#1089
EHocking Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,442	Originally Posted by rdaneel Oh, please, please, please please, let Trump not realise that until to late. It may be a deliberate tip of the hat to his Russian controllers? Wee kno he has a peenchant for pee pee.
EHocking Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,442	__________________ "A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite You can't make up anything anymore. The world itself is a satire. All you're doing is recording it. Art Buchwald

Today, 06:28 AM	#1090
dasmiller Just the right amount of cowbell Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon Posts: 6,358	Originally Posted by alfaniner The PDJT himself is talking about forming a new party, the Patriot Party. (hilite mine) As Inigo said, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." (not directed towards alfaniner)
	__________________ "In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt

Today, 06:42 AM	#1091
turingtest Mistral, mistral wind... Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Embedded, reporting from Mississippi Posts: 4,537	Originally Posted by alfaniner The PDJT himself is talking about forming a new party, the Patriot Party. Originally Posted by bruto I would expect that to split the Republican party pretty nastily, with the GOP losing the loyal T** base, enough to guarantee further losses without enough in the Patriot party to win much of anything. If nothing else, though, I'd expect that as soon as T** takes his base away from the Republican Party, there would be that much less reason for McConnell and his cronies to pander to them, so I'm guessing it's more of a blackmail threat: if you vote to convict I'll pick up my dollies and go home. With any luck, that will be the outcome, the deplorables will join Trump in his PP tee-pee; to adapt the old LBJ adage, a small tent with a crowd whose whole purpose is to be people pissing out.
	__________________ I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV; I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems Deep Purple- "The Aviator" Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King

Today, 06:53 AM	#1092
dasmiller Just the right amount of cowbell Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon Posts: 6,358	Originally Posted by turingtest With any luck, that will be the outcome, the deplorables will join Trump in his PP tee-pee; to adapt the old LBJ adage, a small tent with a crowd whose whole purpose is to be people pissing out. I know it sounds good for the rest of us to have the Republican party split like that, but I'm not sure it is. To me, the P-Party sounds like Tea Party Version 1.1. Instead of being an actual separate party, the P-Party may just be unionizing the crazier side of the Republican Party to give them a stronger voice in Republican politics.
	__________________ "In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt

Today, 07:10 AM	#1093
turingtest Mistral, mistral wind... Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Embedded, reporting from Mississippi Posts: 4,537	Originally Posted by dasmiller I know it sounds good for the rest of us to have the Republican party split like that, but I'm not sure it is. To me, the P-Party sounds like Tea Party Version 1.1. Instead of being an actual separate party, the P-Party may just be unionizing the crazier side of the Republican Party to give them a stronger voice in Republican politics. That's a good point. I guess what I'm hoping is that the GOP will learn a lesson from the 2020 election, that appealing to that crazier base is no guarantee of a win, and that they will themselves move to marginalize them as unnecessary; it may be something like this that McConnell is thinking of when he says he's considering voting to convict Trump on the impeachment article, as a sort of strategic (if not principled) exorcism. I've never been a fan of the GOP, but they were, at one time, a responsible conservative party, and I think at least two responsible parties are a necessity for a working democracy.
	__________________ I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV; I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems Deep Purple- "The Aviator" Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King

Today, 07:17 AM	#1094
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 32,213	Originally Posted by turingtest […]to adapt the old LBJ adage, a small tent with a crowd whose whole purpose is to be people pissing out. ...but who are all, inexplicably, facing in the wrong direction. Dave
	__________________ Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel. - Myriad

Today, 07:21 AM	#1095
turingtest Mistral, mistral wind... Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Embedded, reporting from Mississippi Posts: 4,537	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers ...but who are all, inexplicably, facing in the wrong direction. Dave Ha! Yeah, but maybe not so inexplicable when you consider the mental caliber involved.
	__________________ I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV; I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems Deep Purple- "The Aviator" Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King

Today, 07:27 AM	#1096
Delvo Дэлво Δελϝο דֶלְבֹֿ देल्वो Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: North Tonawanda, NY Posts: 9,202	People who prefer one party are always too quick to predict the other's fracturing (or demise by other means). But it would actually be bad for the Democrats if the Republicans did fall apart. Both parties are divided, but one of the major factions in each case is the same: the corporate bribe-takers whose real job there, as assigned to them by their real employers, is to make sure that as much money as possible keeps flowing up from the peasants to their corporate masters. Take away this crowd's support & influence in the Republican Party and it'll still be around, just more in the other party instead. The influx to the "Democrats" will help that party "win" against Republicans, but it will shift the party's own internal division even more in favor of the faction that was already just like one of the Republican factions anyway.

Today, 07:42 AM	#1097
dasmiller Just the right amount of cowbell Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon Posts: 6,358	Originally Posted by turingtest I've never been a fan of the GOP, but they were, at one time, a responsible conservative party, and I think at least two responsible parties are a necessity for a working democracy. I don't consider myself a Democrat, but I've been a functional Democrat (at the national level) for many years now because the Republicans have gone kinda crazy. I'd much prefer to be choosing between two decent, responsible parties. Currently, I find myself choosing between, "Eh, maybe," and "Oh, God, not that!" I remember being very pleased about the 2008 Presidential election because I liked both McCain and Obama. I think that's how our elections should always be, and I'd be thrilled to see the U.S. get back to that. Neither were perfect, and I can point out things that I consider serious lapses by both of them. But I don't think it's realistic to expect un-flawed candidates. Or people in general.
	__________________ "In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt

Today, 07:44 AM	#1098
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 27,244	I don't want one party. I just want mine to keep winning.
	__________________ I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver) Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)

Today, 08:38 AM	#1099
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 14,344	Originally Posted by Delvo People who prefer one party are always too quick to predict the other's fracturing (or demise by other means). But it would actually be bad for the Democrats if the Republicans did fall apart. Both parties are divided, but one of the major factions in each case is the same: the corporate bribe-takers whose real job there, as assigned to them by their real employers, is to make sure that as much money as possible keeps flowing up from the peasants to their corporate masters. Take away this crowd's support & influence in the Republican Party and it'll still be around, just more in the other party instead. The influx to the "Democrats" will help that party "win" against Republicans, but it will shift the party's own internal division even more in favor of the faction that was already just like one of the Republican factions anyway. The GOP had no issue subsuming the Tea Party. Everyone of the Trumpistas will either rejoin the Party or become disillusioned with politics altogether.
	__________________ Ceterum autem censeo fox et amicis esse delendam.

Today, 08:40 AM	#1100
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 32,213	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza The GOP had no issue subsuming the Tea Party. Really? Aren't they more or less the same people as Trump's hardcore supporters? Dave
	__________________ Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel. - Myriad

Today, 08:44 AM	#1101
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 14,344	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers Really? Aren't they more or less the same people as Trump's hardcore supporters? Dave you are illustrating my point nicely.
	__________________ Ceterum autem censeo fox et amicis esse delendam.

Today, 08:51 AM	#1102
SuburbanTurkey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2018 Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 7,213	I too wonder about the sincerity of this Trump third party. The reality of American politics is that splitting means both fragments become irrelevant. Voting rules vary by locality in this country, but a split in the conservative wing would often mean victory for Democrats with less than a majority, while losses for both conservative parties that together may have been the majority of voters. I could easily see Trump launching a more combative pseudo-party within the Republican party, very much like the Tea Party. They might challenge traditional conservatives in primaries and try to throw their weight around as a block-vote, should they achieve enough victories for this to be effective.
	__________________ Gobble gobble

Today, 08:51 AM	#1103
Dr. Keith Not a doctor. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 21,979	Originally Posted by No Other Can you enlighten me and tell me what I thought? Now that I've caught up a bit on the thread: no. I can not see the you have actually expressed anything of interest, whereas it seemed from those initial posts you actually were heading for an obvious point. My apologies for making the assumption that you had something to say. Won't happen again.
	__________________ Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God. He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.

Today, 08:56 AM	#1104
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 29,852	Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey I too wonder about the sincerity of this Trump third party. The reality of American politics is that splitting means both fragments become irrelevant. Voting rules vary by locality in this country, but a split in the conservative wing would often mean victory for Democrats with less than a majority, while losses for both conservative parties that together may have been the majority of voters. Not to pick on you directly, but the exact same thing the Progressives hope to accomplish in regards to your hated "Centrists." No the Progressive Wing of the Democratic Party knows full well it can't stand against the GOP without the more moderate old guard folks. "Well we'll just form our own party!" is a threat hoping to get more power and influence within the party. Nobody who threatens to take their ball and go home really wants the game to end or the teams they change. They just want to be coach instead of the 3rd baseman.
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

Today, 09:04 AM	#1105
SuburbanTurkey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2018 Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 7,213	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Not to pick on you directly, but the exact same thing the Progressives hope to accomplish in regards to your hated "Centrists." No the Progressive Wing of the Democratic Party knows full well it can't stand against the GOP without the more moderate old guard folks. "Well we'll just form our own party!" is a threat hoping to get more power and influence within the party. Nobody who threatens to take their ball and go home really wants the game to end or the teams they change. They just want to be coach instead of the 3rd baseman. Sure, I wasn't saying it's a bad thing. You can say a lot of negative things about the Tea Party (mostly that they were just a thinly veiled racist backlash to Obama), but you can't say the tactics didn't work. Compare that to the Libertarian party, a third party with a long history of mostly no electoral accomplishment. The progressives aren't a third party because they want to actually have a chance to accomplish something. The Tea Party revolution showed that working from within the party, through primary challenges and forming a sub-party within the party, is the practical route. Trump is talking about forming a true third party, by some reports. It's a hopeless endeavor, unless enough conservatives leave that they become the new home of the majority of conservatives. There's already a core of politicians that could form the MAGA sub party within the Republican party. The Q congresspeople, the recent MAGA types, etc. Seems Trump's political ambitions would probably be better served just forming a camp within the camp rather than a true third party.
	__________________ Gobble gobble Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; Today at 09:13 AM.

Today, 09:25 AM	#1106
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 32,213	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza you are illustrating my point nicely. No, I don't think I am. I think the Tea Party was never actually subsumed, but remained a separate enclave in the Republican Party, which Trump stepped in to take control of; and now he's considering splitting off with them to form a new party. The fact that this hasn't happened yet is a rather poor argument for it being unlikely to happen in the future. Dave
	__________________ Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel. - Myriad

Today, 09:38 AM	#1107
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 14,344	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers No, I don't think I am. I think the Tea Party was never actually subsumed, but remained a separate enclave in the Republican Party, which Trump stepped in to take control of; and now he's considering splitting off with them to form a new party. The fact that this hasn't happened yet is a rather poor argument for it being unlikely to happen in the future. Dave oh really? then why did we not hear a beep from the 'fiscal conservatives' during the Trump years? No, the Tea Party might have caused the GOP to move to the irresponsible Right, but it is no longer an identifiable caucus.
	__________________ Ceterum autem censeo fox et amicis esse delendam.

Today, 09:39 AM	#1108
turingtest Mistral, mistral wind... Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Embedded, reporting from Mississippi Posts: 4,537	Originally Posted by dasmiller I don't consider myself a Democrat, but I've been a functional Democrat (at the national level) for many years now because the Republicans have gone kinda crazy. I'd much prefer to be choosing between two decent, responsible parties. Currently, I find myself choosing between, "Eh, maybe," and "Oh, God, not that!" I remember being very pleased about the 2008 Presidential election because I liked both McCain and Obama. I think that's how our elections should always be, and I'd be thrilled to see the U.S. get back to that. Neither were perfect, and I can point out things that I consider serious lapses by both of them. But I don't think it's realistic to expect un-flawed candidates. Or people in general. Agreed, and nothing about 2012 even really sticks out in my mind for the sort of rancor we've seen since. We went in just those few short years from McCain's (referring to Obama) Quote: He is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as President, If I didn’t think I’d be one heck of a better President I wouldn’t be running, and that’s the point. I admire Sen. Obama and his accomplishments, I will respect him. I want everyone to be respectful, and let’s make sure we are. Because that’s the way politics should be conducted in America. to Trump's "you'll be in jail" and leading chants of "lock her up!" against Clinton.
	__________________ I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV; I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems Deep Purple- "The Aviator" Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King

Today, 10:04 AM	#1109
No Other Muse Join Date: Feb 2016 Posts: 633	Originally Posted by Dr. Keith Now that I've caught up a bit on the thread: no. I can not see the you have actually expressed anything of interest, whereas it seemed from those initial posts you actually were heading for an obvious point. My apologies for making the assumption that you had something to say. Won't happen again. Snide comment noticed and understood. What you and some others fail to grasp is that this site is a Skeptics site and not just an opinion forum.
No Other Muse Join Date: Feb 2016 Posts: 633

Today, 10:09 AM	#1110
wareyin Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 8,154	Originally Posted by Delvo People who prefer one party are always too quick to predict the other's fracturing (or demise by other means). But it would actually be bad for the Democrats if the Republicans did fall apart. Both parties are divided, but one of the major factions in each case is the same: the corporate bribe-takers whose real job there, as assigned to them by their real employers, is to make sure that as much money as possible keeps flowing up from the peasants to their corporate masters. Take away this crowd's support & influence in the Republican Party and it'll still be around, just more in the other party instead. The influx to the "Democrats" will help that party "win" against Republicans, but it will shift the party's own internal division even more in favor of the faction that was already just like one of the Republican factions anyway. Can you explain how if both parties are already the same (your assertion) , one of the two identical parties fracturing would be bad for the remaining party? Seems to me that a fracture would actually create a party that is actually different from the 2 parties you claim are the same now, thus creating actual competition. Of course, not many of us think the 2 parties are the same. In fact, you previously claimed that the US would be better re-electing Trump, which certainly implies that you also don't think both parties are just like each other. Hmmm, a quandary.

Today, 10:23 AM	#1111
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 14,344	It's far more likely that the Democrats will split ... and that might not be a bad thing for them.
	__________________ Ceterum autem censeo fox et amicis esse delendam.

Today, 10:28 AM	#1112
SuburbanTurkey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2018 Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 7,213	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza oh really? then why did we not hear a beep from the 'fiscal conservatives' during the Trump years? No, the Tea Party might have caused the GOP to move to the irresponsible Right, but it is no longer an identifiable caucus. Because it was never about fiscal conservatism. We heard a lot about increasingly open white nationalism from the tea party turned MAGA block, and that's really what they were always about. Fiscal restraint was just useful PR for their obstinance to the Obama administration.
	__________________ Gobble gobble

Today, 10:32 AM	#1113
Aridas Crazy Little Green Dragon Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: East Coast, US Posts: 7,324	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza oh really? then why did we not hear a beep from the 'fiscal conservatives' during the Trump years? No, the Tea Party might have caused the GOP to move to the irresponsible Right, but it is no longer an identifiable caucus. To poke at this... We did? The Tea Party was one of the notable factors that prevented the Republicans from actually getting anything of note done while the Republicans had the House in the first 2 years, then faced irrelevance when Democrats had the majority in the House, so they simply don't get much attention now... because of their current irrelevance and because Trump's been hogging the news space. They haven't gone away, at last check. As SuburbanTurkey notes, though, it was only ever really about fiscal conservatism superficially. That was a rallying cry, but it very quickly became evident that that's not what they were actually about.
	__________________ So sayeth the crazy little dragon. Last edited by Aridas; Today at 10:35 AM.

Today, 10:50 AM	#1114
Mader Levap Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 1,527	Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey I too wonder about the sincerity of this Trump third party. The reality of American politics is that splitting means both fragments become irrelevant. I could see Trump doing that - as retaliation on republicans for inssuficiently supporting his coup efforts. In this case, that third party never was intended to win anything, just drag republicans down with them. Unfortunately, it is kinda unlikely. Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza It's far more likely that the Democrats will split ... and that might not be a bad thing for them. They will split only if republicans cease to exist somehow. It would be nice to have actually lefty party in USA, though. It is also kinda unlikely.
	__________________ Sanity is overrated. / Voting for Republicans is morally equivalent to voting for Nazis in early 30's.

Today, 12:08 PM	#1115
Dr. Keith Not a doctor. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 21,979	Originally Posted by No Other Snide comment noticed and understood. I doubt it. Quote: What you and some others fail to grasp is that this site is a Skeptics site and not just an opinion forum. And now you are telling me what I understand? Please do elaborate.
	__________________ Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God. He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.