A little background......
https://www.yahoo.com/news/americas-pol … 02936.html
"More alarming, though, is that some of Trump's fellow Republicans are advocating for GOP-held legislatures to overturn the will of the voters in states — like Michigan and Pennsylvania — where Biden won, and send a Trump set of electors to the Electoral College. Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) is perhaps the highest-profile elected official to support this effort."
"That probably won't happen this election; Republican officials in those swing states have already rejected the idea. But if the Trump Era has proven anything, it's that when the Overton Window shifts in one direction, it doesn't always shift back the other way. Until this election, the idea of legislatures ignoring their state's popular vote results was mostly theoretical — not taken seriously by anybody in the political mainstream. Now that it's out there, the the notion feels a bit like Chekov's gun, unused for the moment but certain to be fired eventually."
Yes, while the idea has been rejected because the Rightwingers knew that the general public would not stand for it, the very thought that so many prominent Republicans, including our illustrious Governor DeSantis, would even considered this tyrannical and anti-democratic course is enough to give one pause. But, it does tell me a lot about the Republican Party and, by extension, the conservatives that worship at its altar.
"Since Barack Obama’s election in 2008, some conservatives have grown insistent that they—and only they—can legitimately wield power, and that members of their rival party’s constituencies are but usurpers. Fox hosts darkly warn that “Latin American countries are changing election outcomes here by forcing demographic change on this country” and that Democrats “want to replace you, the American voters, with newly amnestied citizens and an ever-increasing number of chain migrants.” Before going on to serve in the Trump administration, the conservative writer Michael Anton published an essay arguing that only a Trump presidency could reverse “the ceaseless importation of Third World foreigners with no tradition of, taste for, or experience in liberty,” leading to an electorate that “grows more left, more Democratic, less Republican, less republican, and less traditionally American with every cycle.”
So, Conservatives, how much of this define you?
Another relevant article for your perusal.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi … te/616808/
But with the 2008 election of Barack Obama, the first African American president, there was resurgence in conservative circles of what Kabaservice calls “cultural/racial pessimism.” In 2012, on the morning after Obama’s convincing reelection victory, the talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh viscerally expressed the widespread conservative fear that the country had reached a demographic tipping point. “I went to bed last night thinking, We are outnumbered,” he lamented to his audience. “I went to bed last night thinking, We’ve lost the country. I don’t know how else you look at this.”
I hear this from Rush Limbaugh, that nauseating pile of blubber. So, how many of you believe the same thing?
Conservatives are great at switching labels used to fundamentally describe the same packages with the contents unchanged, as the article points out.
"More alarming, though, is that some of Trump's fellow Republicans are advocating for GOP-held legislatures to overturn the will of the voters in states — like Michigan and Pennsylvania — where Biden won, and send a Trump set of electors to the Electoral College."
This is probably fair (I haven't seen it, but don't doubt that some are requesting it). Is it also fair to say that some Democrats are denying that the weirdest election in our history should be scrutinized for irregularities and fraud? That no results should be contested? That it is known that there is no fraud...after claiming fraud by Trump for years (that was found to consist of social media posts by Russia)?
Wilderness, what do you think these states have been wrestling with? We are not going give in to any of Trump wild accusations and claims about election integrity without proof. So far, he has not produced any of sufficient magnitude to change the outcome of this election.
It is an election with by far the most participants which gives one a better feeling about democracy rather than less.
So, if I were him, I would call the Bekins man and start the plan to vacate 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, when the lease is up before having to be forceably evicted. It would be embarrassing to have all your possessions deposited on the street in front of the residence.
That's what I said, isn't it? Ignore claims from the opposition, while "investigating" the heck out of him based on a faux complaint from Joe Blow.
Credence, you are watching/reading way too much MSM (aka hysterical ranting and fabricating) News.
I have already told you, Trump is done, its over for him and his supporters.
US Rep Bill Pascrell just called for a widespread investigation into Trump and his supporters and his Prosecution for his many crimes against the United States.
Did you think I was joking a week or so ago when I talked about Trump Tribunals and a Truth and Reconciliation Commission?
You cannot spend four years labeling a man a tyrant, white supremacist and traitor to the country and just let bygones be bygones after you take the Presidency from him.
The Democrats will gain control of the Senate (they will win both seats in GA) and they will persecute Trump and those within the Administration that support him till the end like no people in America since Benedict Arnold.
Well, Ken, if it is done for him, it seems that he is the last one to acknowledge it. When does he finally concede so that the Biden transition team to get started?
But, Trump has lost so it is time to go bye and be gone.
And, yes I know that Cuomo will be waiting for him on January 20th with a pair of matching bracelets.
As for the Democrats regaining control of the Senate, that still remains to be seen. But we can only hope.
I know what you have said, but I like to verify information for myself.
I don't think this is about revenge more than restoring what has been taken.
Regarding Trump, he is still President until January 2021... many weeks away.
All the hysteria and hoopla in the MSM over him turning over the Presidency is silly, click bait, or lunacy (depending on the presenter).
Trump is going to be Trump until the end, he will berate and belittle his opponents (the MSM and Democrats) until the last day in office. But in the end he will abdicate the throne, he will have no choice in the matter, even the majority of DC Republican politicians will be calling for him to accept the election's results once the electoral process has completed.
The Democrats will "win" the elections in GA, whatever amount of money needing to be spent or arm twisting required to get it done, in order to issue the drastic changes to come in the country over the next couple of years the Dems need majority control (no matter how slim) to ensure it gets done as expediently as possible.
You really should read some of the links I have left you here, when you understand that the changes coming are bigger than Republican or Democrat, bigger than National politics, changes that encompass the majority of the globe as well as the "will" of the global economy (International Corporations and Banks worth more than the total of America itself and its economy) you would better recognize that there is no chance that Trump will remain or that these efforts will be thwarted by a gridlocked Congress.
I agree, but question mark: why only the states he lost in? No scrutinizing by Trump folk going on in N.C.
Not the states he lost in: only the states that have traditionally voted red but went blue. At the last moment, using mass mail in ballots (for the first time) long after election day to make the switch, for until those were counted (after election day) those states were still red.
But hey, nothing unusual there! I don't believe that sufficient fraud will be found to change the election, but to try and deny that it was a strange, very different, election, or that he has every right, ethical and legal, to demand an investigation/recount, is a tactic only the Democrats have shown themselves willing to stoop to. As far as I'm concerned it is in line with the witch hunt for Russian collusion (note here that an investigation, years after the election, was found reasonable and necessary by Democrats) and a faux, completely partisan impeachment. The ends justify the means; anything to get Trump out of office.
The bigger question is why the outcry against ethical and legal recounts?
I think you should change, or at least qualify, your "Conservative" declarations.
Either substitute Republican for Conservative or qualify Conservative with 'Republican Conservative'.
Just as you stand as a Progressive warrior, I will take the same stand for Conservatives. To hold to Republican beliefs may require one to have a conservative view, but to hold to Conservative views does not require one to be a Republican.
I do not support those Republicans calling for such legislature overrules of the popular vote. And I do not support the Republican claims of massive voter fraud in the face of such lack of evidence. I would not deny there are instances of voter fraud, with the numbers, human nature, and stakes involved, I cannot see that it would not happen. But I believe those fraud numbers, (or human error numbers)—as so far shown, to be insignificant. That may not be a Republican view, but I would venture that it is a fair Conservative view.
Not sure where you are going with your analogy comparing Republicans to Conservatives? Yes, many belong to the Republican party can and do have conservative attributes. However, I don't think the two naturally go together. IMO conservatives do not in any way ascribe to groupthink, as it seems to be implying. I find conservatives, as a rule, to be very much individualist.
The Republican party today is very diverse. You have provided a couple of examples that go to prove that very opinion. Gov. Ron DeSantis as you have claimed has supported advocating for GOP-held legislatures to overturn the will of the voters in states — like Michigan and Pennsylvania — where Biden won, and send a Trump set of electors to the Electoral College. However, many others in the GOP have given a very opposite opinion on the subject.
In regards to Rush's quote -- many conservatives would disagree with his off-handed view. Me for one...
Being a conservative in my opinion is a person that has certain beliefs and certain attributes. They can be averse to change, and hold traditional values, favoring free enterprise and private ownership, and as a rule, have socially traditional ideas to name just a few. All attributes, but just part of thinking feeling complex human being...
A Republican just signifies that one is a member or supporter of the Republican Party. A political party, not a human being.
It would seem many think conservatism is a prerequisite for belonging to the Republican party. Between you and me most conservatives I am acquainted with are very open thinkers, and while yes having conservative values, in no way are stuck in the mud due to those values, or do they march to a single tune.
GA and Sharlee, I guess your assertion is fair.
But we can also say that all left leaning progressive minded thinkers are not advocating Molotov cocktails or elimination of police departments. Things that I seem to hear a great deal from the Right wing side of the forum. Nor, can you accurately speak of the Democratic Party advocating anarchy. How can any Republican or anybody for that matter advocate tyranny in the place of an orderly process? What type of Republican is that?
We all favor free enterprise and private property. This is America and those concepts lie at its foundation. It is the Rightwingers that speak of socialism all of the time without really knowing what it is.
There are a lot of conservatives that agree with Rush consistently or he would not have remained on the air for so long, nor would have made so much money.
We are all complex human beings, I just hold different values and beliefs than do many of you.
What part of the Republican Party is content with a tyrannical approach in regards to the electorate? Can any Democratic initiative be the equivalent, where is it?
It's hard to say the Dem's are not advocating anarchy, not when we see Democratic leaders and states openly violating the law in immigration policies. When we see Democrat leaders openly encouraging riots and Democrat cities refusing to enforce laws against such violence. When we see anarchists simply take over sections of Democrat cities, kicking police out and setting up their own rules, without any response from the Democrat leaders. When we see Biden wanting to ignore years of law breaking by illegal aliens and give them citizenship...because they broke the laws of the nation.
All of these speak very plainly, that the Democrat party is not a proponent of a "nation of laws" - the alternative is anarchy. Or "tyranny" if only laws approved of by individual leaders are accepted and enforced, with those they don't like ignored.
Democratic municipal leaders did not openly encourage rioting, you should change the channel from Fox News.
Does the irritatingly moderate Joe Biden or Kamela Harris, a California prosecuting attorney, really give you the impression of anarchists?
We agree to disagree, but I consider today's GOP a far greater danger to peace and civilization.
So? Was it the Portland mayor or Oregon governor at the front of the mob, breaking through gates onto private ground, and exhorting the mob to never quit, to continue on?
Wasn't it the Sacramento mayor openly giving notice to lawbreakers that the law was in town - to hide from them?
Wasn't it Denver that decided to ignore public hygiene and common sense, permitting urination and defecation on public sidewalks and streets?
Biden, no - he doesn't seem an anarchist - but hundreds of other Democrat leaders do.
I know you consider the GOP a danger...that's because you, too, are a socialist. Or, if you prefer, a Marxist - that's probably a better term although the term "socialist" has changed meaning in today's world. "Progressive" has come to mean, more than anything else, to take from the rich (or, mostly, the middle class, for they have no real political power) and give to the poor...call it socialism, call it Marxism, call it the "Robin Hood Complex", call it whatever you wish, but recognize it for what is happening.
Yes, the GOP is fascist and authoritarian and that is far worse. I don't want to visit on my colorful metaphors as to how I describe today's conservatives.
I want to nudge things over a bit, so now I am a Marxist. Just like Rightwingers do cling to all that Cold War stuff, when the real conflict is right here within our borders.
Can you document your assertions about Dems and the protests beyond just the mere recollection of what you read?
At least "Rightwinger"—whatever your definition, is better than Conservative.
I would also venture that those lowercase "c" conservatives you mention as examples are also uppercase "R" Republicans.
Labels work for all of us, (even when they are too broadly inclusive), as descriptors of a concept, but they should at least be as narrowly defined as is possible. And I agree both sides do it. Uppercase "L" Liberals probably aren't the same as their lowercase "l" liberal companions. I bet there might even be some Liberals who aren't Democrats, but I bet all liberals are.
Regarding your last question; Do you think the tyrannical impeachment efforts of the Democrats might compare?
So, are you saying that all Liberals are probably Democrats, yet all Conservatives are not necessarily Republicans? How does that figure?
I don't consider the impeachment tyrannical, Trump had been accused of withholding appropriated funds and bribing another nation's officials for political gain. It is only the GOP dominated Senate that got him off of the hook. That is far from being innocent in my opinion. So, there is no comparison.
The Impeachment looked idiotic at the time, but today it looks brilliant in hindsight.
I believe those efforts cost the Democrats Senate and Representative seats as much as anything that has gone on in the last year, but I also think it further helped to delegitimize Trump in the eyes of more Americans.
It was a bold political move that in the end may have helped get them the payoff they wanted.
Nope, I said most [l]iiberals Are probably Democrats and most [c]conservatives are probably Republicans. The differences in the capitalization of your labels. A Liberal is different from a liberal just as a Conservative is different from a conservative.
The capitalized label is an ideology, the lowercase label is a political view.
So in the case of the impeachment, you don't consider a party-line vote to be tyrannical because you think he is guilty, but in the trial of an impeachment, you do consider a party-line vote tyrannical—because you think he is guilty. You are going to have to give some time to work that out.
He is guilty based on the evidence and unfortunately in this hyperpartisan environment it is hard to discern that from the facts pointing to actual guilt or innocence.
What about a party line vote absolving Trump just for partisan reasons, is that better?
I am just saying that if anyone did what Trump did, they should be called out on it so, it is not just about Trump and the Republicans.
"But we can also say that all left-leaning progressive-minded thinkers are not advocating Molotov cocktails or the elimination of police departments." Yes, we can agree on this to be true. However, some that lean right may hold that sentiment. We all have the ability to think differently about any given subject, do we not? You stated you have heard these sentiments from some of the people that post here on HP's. But, to make my point. Do you hear that sentiment from all the people that you consider being conservative here on HP's?
Does the Democratic Party advocate anarchy? Yes, some do, all one need do is listen to some of what we hear from the media... Some individuals that lean left, as well as right, do appear to advocate anarchy. Kamala Harris paid protesters bails and encouraged other to do the same this past summer... This is only one example. So yes, I would have to argue your belief that advocating anarchy is solely a right-wing attribute.
And yes I agree it's part of our American culture to favor free enterprise and private property. This sentiment is innate to most American's. Although, both are well-known conservative ideals.
" It is the Rightwingers that speak of socialism all of the time without really knowing what it is."
I can't answer for others that post here in regards to being well versed in socialism. I have done sufficient reading on the subject, and feel I have enough information on the subject to add a view here and there.
In regard to Rush, it is very certain he has a large audience of followers, and I assume many respect his opinion. But again not all conservatives or those that are registered Republicans even listen to his show. As you stated we are all human beings, and most defiantly have differing values and beliefs. Should we be allowed to assign beliefs due to a political party or someone's ideology? Could you share some of the values and ideologies I hold vice versa?
"What part of the Republican Party is content with a tyrannical approach in regards to the electorate? Can any Democratic initiative be the equivalent, where is it"
The Russian hoax was more than tyrannical. It's something that mares our Constitution and our Nation. If we look back in history we would find many tyrannical deeds, perpetrated by both parties.
As of yet, nothing has been done to disrupt the electors from keeping precedent. Before we cast stones, let's wait until December 14, when the electors vote in their states.
I never said that advocating anarchy was a right wing belief. I did say that conservatives like to lump all democrats into being in favor the protests and riots of last summer. The Democrats defeated Trump by over 5 million votes, how could they all be radicals?
What if I said that all Republicans were like Gov. DeSantis, fundamentally tyrannical and undemocratic?
"And yes I agree it's part of our American culture to favor free enterprise and private property. This sentiment is innate to most American's. Although, both are well-known conservative ideals."
Yes, and yet as a progressive liberal type, I did not opposed those ideas on its face.
You were telling me not to apply broad brushes, well that applies to both sides
"What if I said that all Republicans were like Gov. DeSantis, fundamentally tyrannical and undemocratic?"
That would be your right, your opinion. However, It would convey to me that you have a character trait that compartmentalizes.
I think this statement you made in your opening comment really got me thinking and set me back a bit... Hence my previous reply.
"Yes, while the idea has been rejected because the Rightwingers knew that the general public would not stand for it, the very thought that so many prominent Republicans, including our illustrious Governor DeSantis, would even considered this tyrannical and anti-democratic course is enough to give one pause. But, it does tell me a lot about the Republican Party and, by extension, the conservatives that worship at its altar."
And yes, I was trying to impress it's not always good to use a wide brush, and yes we all as human beings could take more care, and not pick up that big sloppy brush. Putting people in baskets is never wise (Ask Hillary Clinton) or does it bring about opening-up and listening to other views. Yes, we are not always going to agree, but we can be open to trying to understand where the other is coming from. And walk away understanding we are diverse and may have many other things in common. Using labels just stands to make others go on the defense. It can provoke an argumentive conversation. However, if one feels they need to use a label, it's their right. However, in my view, it's a tell... It tells me right off that the conversation is tainted with some form of prejudice.
The diversity here on this forum keep it very interesting. If we all agreed with one another all of the time --- it would be very boring, would it not?
Doing a better job of listening from each side to the other may help, I don't deny that. As long as the "other side" can avoid using the broad brush to catagorize liberals and progressives.
I would like to think that the exchange of ideas and outlook would be educational for all involved.
"an avoid using the broad brush to categorize liberals and progressives" These would seem like mild words compared to "Trumpstirs" "Trump supporters". I am not sure why you would feel the terms liberals or progressives are derogatory? Progressive to me indicates the need to move forward being interested in new ideas, findings new solutions. Using the word liberal IMO is just a word that indicates liberal ideals of individual freedoms.
These are words, and should not be taken as an insult. Yes, they do insinuate a state of mind. However, it would seem you may see them as negative. This is odd, because you certainly use the words conservative, and republican to address a given subject. I see no fault in this, In fact, I find it in my case as confirming my ideals. Which I am somewhat proud of. It would seem you do not want to take on the label of a liberal or progressive? I don't quite understand... Would you find being labeled? In regard to being labeled a Trumpster, do you think this fair? Would you think it fair to label you or anyone, perhaps oh let''s see --- "Slappy Joe Supporter"? Have you recognized any form of this type of labeling? Referring to a user or users as simply followers of a president, and implication their opinions are not their own.
I think this is what we need to stay away from doing. Labels that indicate ideology are in many cases suitable in my view, and in some cases necessary to get one's view across. I can respect your wish in regard to not using the words liberal or progressive. But, I won't say it makes sense.
No, Sharlee, it is ok to use liberal/progressive. That is what I am and what I subscribe to. I think we were talking more about stereotypical attitudes and beliefs that people like to use to categorize progressives or conservatives for that matter.
For instance we do not, because we are liberals we don't all approve of eliminating police or raucous behavior associated with the recent protests.
That's a good point - that you don't approve of behavior associated with riots.
The question then becomes what will you do about it? Will you eject the liberal politicians that allowed or encouraged it? Will you demand that police stop riots, even to the point that federal troops (perhaps sent by Trump be used to stop riots?
Or will you put the same "leaders" that sat by and did nothing back into office to repeat their offense because they carry the label "liberal"?
What I won't do is put authoritarian rightwing oriented leadership in its place. That is like throwing out the baby with the bath water.
If Trump decides to nullify the election say if Idaho had voted Democratic would you remove the Republicans responsible for that outrage, or would you continue to support them as the lesser of two evils? But, of course, we already know the answer to that.
Then you will put the left wingers in that allowed, and actively encouraged, the riots in place to repeat the performance.
But you disapprove of actions that produce riots. The two statements are not compatible.
First, Trump cannot "nullify the election" - only the courts can do that. But what about the flip side of the question: if Trump can prove, in a court of law, that there was massive fraud benefitting Democrats would you support nullifying the election in those states/counties or would you continue to support the candidate that won only by massive fraud by his party? If it can be proven that the will of the people was NOT Biden, would you still have him in the White House?
There are other issues where I lean left and will not determine my choice of candidate over any one issue.
I separate Democrat administrations from being the direct cause of the riots, obviously you do not, but that is your opinion, not mine.
If You CAN PROVE massive fraud over many states sufficient to affect the outcome of who actual won the election, then I would go along. But, I have yet to see this.
*shrug* None of us have seen it...yet.
That seems to be the whole point - we either look at what will be advanced into the court system or we declare there is no fraud and no court should entertain any evidence to the contrary. I find it interesting that so many are making the claim of no fraud, and insisting that Trump is full of it, without ever looking at all. We are either a nation of laws and reason or we are not; denying fraud without ever looking is neither reasonable OR legally acceptable. IMHO.
And if I'm proven wrong and there actually was sufficient fraud to change the election (or any beyond a very minor amount that is inevitable with that many voters), well, it won't be the first time I was wrong.
by Readmikenow 18 months ago
It is an example of the hypocrisy of the left. They believe they protect black people, except for black conservatives. I know black conservatives who have been lectured by white, female, liberals about being black. If a white liberal says anything racist about a black...
by Scott Belford 13 months ago
In my opinion, yes - the Republican Party no-longer exists today even though Trump followers incorrectly refer to themselves as Republicans.Let me open this discussion with a short tutorial of the Republican Party (now keep in mind, the Party title has no bearing on the Party philosophy and any...
by Allen Donald 4 years ago
Note: this forum is the direct result of a conservative poster's implication through a single example on facebook of a anti-conservative pedophile posting, that Democrats are linked to pedophiles.So, given the revelations in Pennsylvania of 300 conservative priests molesting children with over...
by Brenda Durham 9 years ago
Where is it?and What is it?Is it now the Activist Party?The Homosexual Party?The Vengeance Party?The Obama Worshippers Party?There seems to be little semblance left of what it used to be. Before 2008, it still held to at least SOME core moral values and SOME sense of manners. ...
by Scott Belford 5 years ago
The Ds lost their fourth special election. Some say those are Big Wins for Rs and Disaster for Ds. Other optimistic souls say each was a Win for Ds because they were close. While I tend to agree with the last statement, I won't go so far as calling it a win. Instead, I call...
by Credence2 10 years ago
I am taken back to the site 'unskewed polls' where the conservatives were saying that the mainstream polling system was unfairly skewed in favor of Mr. Obama. So, I bet I could not find them now anywhere among all the bits and bites of the internet. Maybe you guys can add to this most interesting,...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|