Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

The Republican Civil War is over: Trump has won, his opponents have surrendered.


Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, jm192 said:

I REALLY don't get Mitch's vote.  I can't see Mitch running again in 6 years.  I think he sees the direction the party is headed in, and it scares the hell out of him.  He needed that symbolic gesture of trying to split the party from Trump.  Just makes zero sense.

Ditto.  Seems like McConnell is desperate to recover the party from the Trump and QAnon crowd, yet he eschewed his best chance to do so.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

The reason I point it out is because it's so hypocritical. :shrug:

Liberals pointing to the letter that Kinzinger got are completely tone deaf to their own hypocrisy.  Watching you guys get mad about this just makes me laugh because all I remember the last four years is liberals justifying shutting out their family members.

But, yes, in a vacuum that letter he got was ridiculous.

Those whose politics don't align with you that butwhatabout are a problem.

Those whose politics align with you that butwhatabaout are a problem.

This isn't complicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rich Conway said:
1 hour ago, jm192 said:

I REALLY don't get Mitch's vote.  I can't see Mitch running again in 6 years.  I think he sees the direction the party is headed in, and it scares the hell out of him.  He needed that symbolic gesture of trying to split the party from Trump.  Just makes zero sense.

Expand  

Ditto.  Seems like McConnell is desperate to recover the party from the Trump and QAnon crowd, yet he eschewed his best chance to do so.

Mitch wants to get rid of the Trump and QAnon crowd but he also wants Republicans to keep winning elections.  That’s the tricky part.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, lazyike said:

What I found interesting in that article is that many didn't leave because of how Trump acted but rather that the GOP didn't defend Trump enough - OOF.

  • Sad 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, The General said:

When the outgoing president is blamed publicly for inciting a riot at the Capitol by the Senate leader from his own party, then the ex-president in turn calls the Senate leader a weak, loser who cowers to China the media usually takes notice.

To be fair this hasn't happened too often so maybe this is an overreaction. 

You definitely gave off the Commie vibe in Mexico.  I should have reported you to the authorities right then and there.

  • Laughing 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Mitch wants to get rid of the Trump and QAnon crowd but he also wants Republicans to keep winning elections.  That’s the tricky part.

You ain't kidding. Good luck to Mitch on hitting that middle.

Edited by Leroy Hoard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Mitch wants to get rid of the Trump and QAnon crowd but he also wants Republicans to keep winning elections.  That’s the tricky part.

He wants to dream like a young man
With the wisdom of an old man
He wants his home and security
He wants to live like a sailor at sea

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, lazyike said:

Have to admit I have recently become a fan of Fareed Zakaria. I fully  agree with his take today.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=3680925621956758

This is rich coming from the party that has Warren, Sanders and the squad. They move further left every election but it's the GOP that has to take control of the extremists? 

Get outta here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

This is rich coming from the party that has Warren, Sanders and the squad. They move further left every election but it's the GOP that has to take control of the extremists? 

Get outta here.

Both parties have had extremists forever. But the Democrats don’t let them run things. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The General said:

Dems last Prez and nominees were Clinton and Biden. Republicans picked the guy who summoned a riot at the Capitol to stop the election process. 

It’s beyond that even. Arguing that the Democrats are more leftist every election ignores the party platform. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Kal El said:

So according to USA Today, half of the GOP’s voters would back a Trump third party.

That makes zero sense to me. Why would so many support a man who doesn’t care about them at all?

Because he has convinced many that he puts them first.  Evidence to the contrary be damned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Because he has convinced many that he puts them first.  Evidence to the contrary be damned.

I can understand believing only half of what one sees, and none of what one hears, as Marvin Gaye once sang, but this is ridiculous! I admit, I’ve been fooled once by several people, but it’ll be a cold day on the Sun before I get fooled that badly.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Kal El said:

So according to USA Today, half of the GOP’s voters would back a Trump third party.

That makes zero sense to me. Why would so many support a man who doesn’t care about them at all?

The most confusing part is why they wouldn’t cut ties with Trump when they could have. Mitch left the door open for him to run or create a new party and then angered him to do just that or at a minimum try to primary the establishment candidates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Kal El said:

So according to USA Today, half of the GOP’s voters would back a Trump third party.

That makes zero sense to me. Why would so many support a man who doesn’t care about them at all?

It helps to remember that Trumpism behaves pretty much textbook like a cult.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Kal El said:

I can understand believing only half of what one sees, and none of what one hears, as Marvin Gaye once sang, but this is ridiculous! I admit, I’ve been fooled once by several people, but it’ll be a cold day on the Sun before I get fooled that badly.

I agree. Not sure ill ever understand the appeal and how so many are just all in on him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a lot of people underestimate the anger that people feel about having coastal elitism foisted upon them in matters economic and social. Trump is the antithesis of globalized cool and tolerant understanding toward others' differences. He's the enemy of the right enemy, and that can make for some passionate bedfellows in politics.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, rockaction said:

I think a lot of people underestimate the anger that people feel about having coastal elitism foisted upon them in matters economic and social. Trump is the antithesis of globalized cool and tolerant understanding toward others' differences. He's the enemy of the right enemy, and that can make for some passionate bedfellows in politics.

Except he has always been a coastal elite himself.  Always lived that way...in direct conflict with how he talked and what some claimed they wanted.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People around here focus a lot on what Trump said but a lot of Trump fans like what he did.

Without COVID, he very likely would have been re-elected.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, rockaction said:

I think a lot of people underestimate the anger that people feel about having coastal elitism foisted upon them in matters economic and social. Trump is the antithesis of globalized cool and tolerant understanding toward others' differences. He's the enemy of the right enemy, and that can make for some passionate bedfellows in politics.

I realize the buzzword is "coastal elite" but in reality it is urban vs. rural. Population centers in middle America are democrat. Rural areas in NE, NY, PA, MD are republican.

Trump owns a multinational branding company and makes many products in China to save money. He promotes women in his company and clearly favors his daughter to take over his legacy. He is an entertainer who keeps feeding the lines that work. The lines that worked were build the wall, lock her up. 

Anger towards "coastal elites" is mostly misplaced. It's the result of a multidecade propaganda and marketing campaign by Fox, Sinclair, and others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jayrod said:

People around here focus a lot on what Trump said but a lot of Trump fans like what he did.

Without COVID, he very likely would have been re-elected.

 

He wemt against conservative principles in spending, trade...

But the point is why so beholden to that man over so many others who have been good conservatives for years?  And even turn against those like McCain, Romney...-and others

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Jayrod said:

People around here focus a lot on what Trump said but a lot of Trump fans like what he did.

Without COVID, he very likely would have been re-elected.

 

I don’t think so. 
Without COVID he wins Georgia and Arizona. But he still loses Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania. He had lost all 3 of those states prior to COVID; suburban white women weren’t with him anymore. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sho nuff said:

Except he has always been a coastal elite himself.  Always lived that way...in direct conflict with how he talked and what some claimed they wanted.

Sometimes lip service and general anger are enough.

41 minutes ago, thriftyrocker said:

I realize the buzzword is "coastal elite" but in reality it is urban vs. rural. Population centers in middle America are democrat. Rural areas in NE, NY, PA, MD are republican.

Trump owns a multinational branding company and makes many products in China to save money. He promotes women in his company and clearly favors his daughter to take over his legacy. He is an entertainer who keeps feeding the lines that work. The lines that worked were build the wall, lock her up. 

Anger towards "coastal elites" is mostly misplaced. It's the result of a multidecade propaganda and marketing campaign by Fox, Sinclair, and others.

Mostly true regarding the boldface font. 

As for misplaced anger, I don't think so. A lot -- and I mean a lot -- of religious people in America have opined that they can no longer raise their kids within their religion with the current intellectual and social climate that exists in America. A lot of people in urban areas who are coastal elites or their apologists may get offended by that notion and call it "misplaced," but this has been self-reported since the seventies and the second wave feminist and gay march through society, long before the advent of Fox and Sinclair. That's when the mobilization against the coastal elites began. It was largely started as a direct mail movement and included a loose conglomeration of churches and preachers and their flock. It was not a creation of broadcast companies.

I was just reading an influential magazine which had top Catholics and evangelical intellectuals and thinkers talking about why they support Trump. They were listing off examples of why. Regarding the about whether they felt there was an impossibility of raising a Christian child in America, their concerns were leveled at very specific instances that distilled the essence of their complaint against the state of affairs, rather than being misdirected as charged. Things like where a community workshop and outreach program had drag queens giving public readings to children at public libraries, discussing the nature of their being. The state's imprimatur is all over that scenario. Stuff like that really irks religious folk, and I'd caution that your use of "misplaced anger" is really synonymous with "unwanted anger." The anger is hardly "misplaced" by any measure of intellectual or cultural standards. Those Catholics and evangelicals would be surprised to hear of their bad aim. In fact, given the stated value sets and beliefs held by this group of intellectuals, one is only surprised that they didn't rebel against institutions like higher education and Hollywood with laser focus sooner than they did.

Edited by rockaction
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Jayrod said:

People around here focus a lot on what Trump said but a lot of Trump fans like what he did.

Without COVID, he very likely would have been re-elected.

 

Completely agree. Heck if he would have  took COVID serious after his own fight, he probably would have won. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Sometimes lip service and general anger are enough.

Mostly true regarding the boldface font. 

As for misplaced anger, I don't think so. A lot -- and I mean a lot -- of religious people in America have opined that they can no longer raise their kids within their religion with the current intellectual and social climate that exists in America. A lot of people in urban areas who are coastal elites or their apologists may get offended by that notion and call it "misplaced," but this has been self-reported since the seventies and the second wave feminist and gay march through society, long before the advent of Fox and Sinclair. That's when the mobilization against the coastal elites began. It was largely started as a direct mail movement and included a loose conglomeration of churches and preachers and their flock. It was not a creation of broadcast companies.

I was just reading an influential magazine which had top Catholics and evangelical intellectuals and thinkers talking about why they support Trump. They were listing off examples of why. Regarding the about whether they felt there was an impossibility of raising a Christian child in America, their concerns were leveled at very specific instances that distilled the essence of their complaint against the state of affairs, rather than being misdirected as charged. Things like where a community workshop and outreach program had drag queens giving public readings to children at public libraries, discussing the nature of their being. The state's imprimatur is all over that scenario. Stuff like that really irks religious folk, and I'd caution that your use of "misplaced anger" is really synonymous with "unwanted anger." The anger is hardly "misplaced" by any measure of intellectual or cultural standards. Those Catholics and evangelicals would be surprised to hear of their bad aim. In fact, given the stated value sets and beliefs held by this group of intellectuals, one is only surprised that they didn't rebel against institutions like higher education and Hollywood with laser focus sooner than they did.

You focus entirely on the social aspect, specifically acceptance of homosexuality. Evangelicals exist in urban coastal population center. They do just fine raising their Christian children in America around gays and various other boogeymen. What you're describing is xenophobia. The most widespread neutral milquetoast entertainment in America is an old lesbian lady who is too rude to her employees. If having a trans person talk to children in a far away city drives one to accept a terrible human as leader, then perhaps their anger is misplaced. Trump loudly declared at the 2016 RNC that he would protect the rights of gay people. The audience applauded. Clearly there are policy differences between the D and R on how separate but equal gay rights should be, but this ship has largely sailed and voting for Trump to protect your children from Ellen is, I don't know the right word, unfortunate.

Will and Grace did not cause rural Christians to be persecuted. They can turn off the television and ignore what happens in some library in a coastal town. But when their media feeds them the War on Christmas and oh, in one library once, a biological male in a dress talked to a child, creates the boogeyman.

I support the right of transgender people to be librarians. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sho nuff said:

Except he has always been a coastal elite himself.  Always lived that way...in direct conflict with how he talked and what some claimed they wanted.

He has been coastal. He is the antithesis of elite when it comes to all kinds of things -- grammar, spelling, basic knowledge of civics, etc.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, thriftyrocker said:

You focus entirely on the social aspect, specifically acceptance of homosexuality.

This whole post sort of lets me know we're talking over each other, or on a level where at least one of us isn't quite comprehending. If by "misdirected" you mean in your judgment of how things are and how they should be, then of course these people, to you, are misdirected. Your political stripes are fairly obvious. I thought you were talking about "misdirected," as in that they had false consciousness about the real problems facing them vis a vis society. That they truly did not know exactly what systemic thing was causing their distress and anger over about our society as it stands.

Oh, wait, you do say that later in your post, so now I'm not sure which it is. Is it both? Are they both misdirected by your normative standards and also misdirected because they aren't even correctly conscious of where their anger should really go? In that case, I'm not sure what to tell you. All I can do is tell you what they say and what they're arguing. The normative judgment and false consciousness claims are up to you. It's not something I particularly want to debate.

What I can say is this: Of course I'm focusing on the social aspect of society and the non-acceptance of the Christian right of homosexuality -- the acceptance of homosexuality and the social acceptance of second wave radical feminism are the main reasons evangelicals and conservative Catholics give -- and gave -- for aligning with the right. It's self-reportedly the case that these two things are what strained their relationship with Democrats. When it came down to it in the 1970s, these former Democratic blocs of voters packed up, moved, and jutted right.

I think we're really arguing over a use of a word that, casually put, encompasses a lot of underlying attitudes and can mean two different things. That we're not clear on how each other is using the word is really the cause for misunderstanding here.

Edited by rockaction
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

Without covid he wins WI. 

Not according to consistent polling throughout the year of 2019. 

There is a reason that Trump committed an impeachable offense by attempting to force Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden: because he knew Biden would beat him in the states that count. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Not according to consistent polling throughout the year of 2019. 

There is a reason that Trump committed an impeachable offense by attempting to force Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden: because he knew Biden would beat him in the states that count. 

I dont care about 2019 polling. Biden won WI by 20k votes. Thats it. There is no way covid didnt swing 20k votes.

Just the number of people alone that were able to vote without even needing a witness signature on their absentee ballot probably offset that. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

I dont care about 2019 polling. Biden won WI by 20k votes. Thats it. There is no way covid didnt swing 20k votes.

Just the number of people alone that were able to vote without even needing a witness signature on their absentee ballot probably offset that. 

 

And none of this is an accusation of fraud. WI has things in place normally that limit turnout of democrat voters. Due to covid those were bypassed, legally. 

Not fraud. Debate about those policies aside, if there is no covid that turnout is lower. 

One of the smartest things democrats did in WI was make the number of primary in person sites so few. The crazy long lines were plastered all over local news for weeks. Then of course the national media was all about these being superspreader places(falsely of course as Evers had the contact tracing question quite ambiguous). When the general came along people were like yeah, absentee for me, no way I am waiting in that crap. When they realized it also bypassed voter ID, it was game over. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, parasaurolophus said:

And none of this is an accusation of fraud. WI has things in place normally that limit turnout of democrat voters. Due to covid those were bypassed, legally. 

Not fraud. Debate about those policies aside, if there is no covid that turnout is lower. 

One of the smartest things democrats did in WI was make the number of primary in person sites so few. The crazy long lines were plastered all over local news for weeks. Then of course the national media was all about these being superspreader places(falsely of course as Evers had the contact tracing question quite ambiguous). When the general came along people were like yeah, absentee for me, no way I am waiting in that crap. When they realized it also bypassed voter ID, it was game over. 

i cant remember if the same rules were in place for the april supreme court race but the dems won that one pretty handily what i can remember is lots of really long lines in waukesha and milwaukee counties and a lot of press about it i cannot recall if mail in voting was the same amount for that one take that to the bank brohan 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, parasaurolophus said:
6 hours ago, timschochet said:

Not according to consistent polling throughout the year of 2019. 

There is a reason that Trump committed an impeachable offense by attempting to force Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden: because he knew Biden would beat him in the states that count. 

I dont care about 2019 polling. Biden won WI by 20k votes. Thats it. There is no way covid didnt swing 20k votes.

Just the number of people alone that were able to vote without even needing a witness signature on their absentee ballot probably offset that. 

Without COVID, many of those people would not have voted absentee, which negates the witness signature debate.

Here is a state-by-state breakdown of Trump's approval rating. In January 2017, he was at +6 in Wisconsin. By December of 2019, he was at -10.

Here is another look at Trump's approval rating in Wisconsin. It shows a peak of -3 in March of 2019; just prior to the COVID outbreak, he was at -8, which is roughly the same number he ended up at on Election Day.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, timschochet said:

I don’t think so. 
Without COVID he wins Georgia and Arizona. But he still loses Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania. He had lost all 3 of those states prior to COVID; suburban white women weren’t with him anymore. 

I disagree about Michigan.  He made it personal with Whitmer and it swung the state to Biden.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

Without COVID, many of those people would not have voted absentee, which negates the witness signature debate.

Here is a state-by-state breakdown of Trump's approval rating. In January 2017, he was at +6 in Wisconsin. By December of 2019, he was at -10.

Here is another look at Trump's approval rating in Wisconsin. It shows a peak of -3 in March of 2019; just prior to the COVID outbreak, he was at -8, which is roughly the same number he ended up at on Election Day.

WIthout covid many of those people wouldn't have voted at all. 

He lost WI by around 20k votes(49.45-48.82).  Those are the actual results. In order to say that Biden would have won without covid you are arguing covid made less than a 1% difference. That doesnt make much sense. Even those graphs show from March 1st to election day his ratings changed two %. And obviously those graphs don't represent results since the results were close to a dead heat.

Also lets take a look at poll numbers on the eve of the election compared to the election results to decide accuracy of polling in WI.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, The General said:

Dems last Prez and nominees were Clinton and Biden. Republicans picked the guy who summoned a riot at the Capitol to stop the election process. 

BUT HER EMAILS!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, timschochet said:

I don’t think so. 
Without COVID he wins Georgia and Arizona. But he still loses Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania. He had lost all 3 of those states prior to COVID; suburban white women weren’t with him anymore. 

What makes you say the bold - especially re: Arizona?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • timschochet changed the title to The Republican Civil War is over: Trump has won, his opponents have surrendered.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...