Current Events > Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney are opportunities to reboot the GOP and dump Trump

(+) Yeah! (+)

And it's obvious that the GOP itself is not in the position to even consider the thought. The irony being that the GOP administration knows full well that they're hemorrhaging support from independents and even roughly 20-30% of the GOP voter base itself by still pandering to Trump when it's obvious that he's a washed-up has-been.

So when Cheney is voted out of her position, McCarthy and Co are just taking one more step off the plank for a man who they know won't come to bat for them anyway.

---

Yeah the issue is the GOP doesn't want a reboot.

They like the crazy

---

Dump Liz Cheney too, fuck neocon warhawks

---

Doom_Art posted...

Yeah the issue is the GOP doesn't want a reboot.

They like the crazy

As much as some think otherwise, we DO need a rational and level-headed alternative party. But the GOP clearly is no longer capable of being it, leaving a lot of voters in a very strange no-man's land where the DNC is their own legitimate option despite policy disagreements.


---

the GOP is a cornered animal and is going to fight to the literal death for the next several decades.

---

Garioshi posted...

Dump Liz Cheney too, fuck neocon warhawks

Meanwhile liberal warhawks are OK because reasons

---

DarkRoast posted...

Meanwhile liberal warhawks are OK because reasons

Fuck liberal warhawks too. Obama and Clinton are war criminals.

---

DarkRoast posted...

Meanwhile liberal warhawks are OK because reasons

I know bothsidesing the Iraq War is your pet bugaboo, but I don't think you'd find Garioshi in favor of them.

---

berlyman101 posted...

the GOP is a cornered animal and is going to fight to the literal death for the next several decades.

They are kept in power almost entirely by Boomers at this point, and Boomers aren't going to be around as a large unified voter block after 20-ish years.


---

GOP figures all they have to do is keep the seats they have and then cheat and steal their way back to power. its why they're actively changing voting laws to block more and more voters.

---

Antifar posted...

I know bothsidesing the Iraq War is your pet bugaboo, but I don't think you'd find Garioshi in favor of them.

Bothsidsing the Iraq War is a legitimately justifiable argument, because it's straight-up revisionist history to suggest the DNC wasn't totally on-board with wrecking Iraq in the late 90's and early 00's.

I don't know how Democrats have managed to wear a persona of being "doves." Every single one of their recent previous presidents - Obama, Clinton, Carter, Johnson, etc were hawkish in their own rights.


---

Garioshi posted...

Fuck liberal warhawks too. Obama and Clinton are war criminals.

Any leader of any modern country can be argued to be a war criminal

Nobody likes Romney and Cheney. They just want to go back to the time where the GOP was secretly evil, instead of blatantly evil like Trump's.
---

JustMyOpinion posted...

Mitt talks the talk but does not walk the walk and overwhelmingly votes in line with his party. He won't reboot anything.

he's the same guy that said half the country are leaches not even a decade ago...

the only difference between him and most of the GOP leadership is he's still latching onto that "maverick" bullshit that mccain claimed even though everyone knows that was bullshit too...

---

monkmith posted...

he's the same guy that said half the country are leaches not even a decade ago...

the only difference between him and most of the GOP leadership is he's still latching onto that "maverick" bullshit that mccain claimed even though everyone knows that was bullshit too...

McCain and John Kerry gave Bill Clinton (draft dodger) the political capital to normalize relations with Vietnam so he did do some maverick things. He also saved the ACA

Yeah. Please don't mistake Romney admitting Trump is bad for Romney being a remotely reasonably person.

---

DarkRoast posted...

Bothsidsing the Iraq War is a legitimately justifiable argument, because it's straight-up revisionist history to suggest the DNC wasn't totally on-board with wrecking Iraq in the late 90's and early 00's.

I don't know how Democrats have managed to wear a persona of being "doves." Every single one of their recent previous presidents - Obama, Clinton, Carter, Johnson, etc were hawkish in their own rights.

well when you compare them to the guy that literally started a war off of lies about WMD's and the urge to finish what daddy started, most can generally see the lesser of two evils...

---

There is no opportunity to reboot the GOP. It is the Whig party of the 21st century.

---

monkmith posted...

well when you compare them to the guy that literally started a war off of lies about WMD's and the urge to finish what daddy started, most can generally see the lesser of two evils...

I suggest reading her post again, Bush spearheaded it but both parties were all for it. I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish here lol


---

CruelBuffalo posted...

McCain and John Kerry gave Bill Clinton (draft dodger) the political capital to normalize relations with Vietnam so he did do some maverick things. He also saved the ACA

he saved the ACA because he was dying of a brain tumor and figured playing the political game was pointless at that point. had that not been happening i absolutely promise you he'd have been grinning and laughing as millions lost their coverage.

as for the vietnam bit, good for him, doesn't really balance out the rest of his time in office.

---

Tldr: Bush lied about WMDs to justify attacking Iraq, but somehow Clinton told the truth when he made the same claims three years prior.

---

BignutzisBack posted...

I suggest reading her post again, Bush spearheaded it but both parties were all for it. I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish here lol

if the president comes to congress and presents "evidence" that the dictator who famously gasses his own people with nerve agent was ramping up to do it again, and would likely reach out and attack us like the taliban did, what the hell do you think the majority of congress is going to say?

hell, even sanders was mostly in support of intervention.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/sanders-opposition-iraq-war-was-more-complicated-he-presents-n1137541

---

I am begging you to listen to Bowback

---

Trumpism isnt going anywhere sadly. Its very likely that another coup will be attempted at some point imo, and who knows if the next one will fail or not

---

monkmith posted...

if the president comes to congress and presents "evidence" that the dictator who famously gasses his own people with nerve agent was ramping up to do it again, and would likely reach out and attack us like the taliban did, what the hell do you think the majority of congress is going to say?

hell, even sanders was mostly in support of intervention.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/sanders-opposition-iraq-war-was-more-complicated-he-presents-n1137541

Evidence given to him by a bipartisan intelligence committee.

Don't get me wrong, Bush deserves all the blame he gets, but Democrats had their hands in the cookie jar and got off scot-free.

---

DarkRoast needs the pre-Trump GOP to be okay in order to reconcile her having supported the party until two years ago.

---

CruelBuffalo posted...

Any leader of any modern country can be argued to be a war criminal

And you see no issue with that?

---

Intro2Logic posted...

DarkRoast needs the pre-Trump GOP to be okay in order to reconcile her having supported the party until two years ago.

Not at all, I think they've always been bad. But that doesn't mean I'm going to let go of the fact that Democrats don't deserve the dove party moniker they think they earned

---

DarkRoast posted...

Tldr: Bush lied about WMDs to justify attacking Iraq, but somehow Clinton told the truth when he made the same claims three years prior.

how is that even comparable? wasn't that a "war" that lasted 4 days and amounted to a couple cruse missiles?

yes, clinton was a jackass who tried to distract from the hummer impeachment trial, but lets not compare that to the 20 year odyssey that is the "war on terror".

---

DarkRoast posted...

Don't get me wrong, Bush deserves all the blame he gets, but Democrats had their hands in the cookie jar and got off scot-free.

You can make a strong case that Clinton lost in 08 and 2016 because she supported it

---

monkmith posted...

how is that even comparable? wasn't that a "war" that lasted 4 days and amounted to a couple cruse missiles?

yes, clinton was a jackass who tried to distract from the hummer impeachment trial, but lets not compare that to the 20 year odyssey that is the "war on terror".

That's a whole separate issue, for which bush in particular is most directly responsible. But Iraq specifically was a clusterfuck a decade in the making, by both parties, both equally culpable.

---

Antifar posted...

You can make a strong case that Clinton lost in 08 and 2016 because she supported it

08 maybe, but 2016?

---

Hillary lost because she had a pizza store with ongoing issues of child background, and the 2016 election she had questions about her health (she fainted walking to her car)

---

monkmith posted...

08 maybe, but 2016?

2016 was straight up bad campaigning by a candidate who, somewhat rightfully, thought she had already won. It was also very clearly tainted by deliberate misinformation campaigns that benefited Trump explicitly.

---

monkmith posted...

08 maybe, but 2016?

Yeah!

https://reason.com/2017/07/03/did-endless-war-cost-hillary-clinton-the/

The paperwritten by Douglas Kriner, a political scientist at Boston University, and Francis Shen, a law professor at the University of Minnesotaprovides powerful lessons about the electoral viability of principled non-intervention, a stance that Trump was able to emulate somewhat on the campaign trail but so far has been incapable of putting into practice.
The study, available at SSRN, found a "significant and meaningful relationship between a community's rate of military sacrifice and its support for Trump." The statistical model it used suggested that if Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin had suffered "even a modestly lower casualty rate," all three could have flipped to Hillary Clinton, making her the president. The study controlled for party identification, comparing Trump's performance in the communities selected to Mitt Romney's performance in 2012. It also controlled for other relevant factors, including median family income, college education, race, the percentage of a community that is rural, and even how many veterans there were.
"Even after including all of these demographic control variables, the relationship between a county's casualty rate and Trump's electoral performance remains positive and statistically significant," the paper noted. "Trump significantly outperformed Romney in counties that shouldered a disproportionate share of the war burden in Iraq and Afghanistan."

---

JFrench2 posted...

Hillary lost because she had a pizza store with ongoing issues of child background,

This is a weird take even by your standards.

---

Antifar posted...

Yeah!

https://reason.com/2017/07/03/did-endless-war-cost-hillary-clinton-the/

huh, not sure what leap in logic a voter upset about war loss would have to make to vote for the guy that openly proclaimed his love for war and disdain for 'losers' who got caught or hurt, but damn.

---

Antifar posted...

This is a weird take even by your standards.

seems like an obvious reference to the "pizzagate" 'scandal'...

---

monkmith posted...

huh, not sure what leap in logic a voter upset about war loss would have to make to vote for the guy that openly proclaimed his love for war and disdain for 'losers' who got caught or hurt, but damn.

Trump spent no small amount of time on the campaign trail talking about his opposition (entirely inflated) to the Iraq War
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-iraq-war_n_57acdbb1e4b007c36e4dc5c6
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2003-clip-backs-up-trump-on-iraq-war-opposition
https://time.com/4409827/donald-trump-mike-pence-hillary-clinton-iraq/

---

monkmith posted...

seems like an obvious reference to the "pizzagate" 'scandal'...

Even by my understanding of Pizzagate, she didn't "have" that store.

---

That wouldn't be a reboot it would just be going back to the neocon years with the same people from those years. Face it, enough GOP voters are diehard tea party/trump people now that they make up the majority. And unfortunately the majority of the Dems support people like Biden that are virtually indistinguishable from neocons. Just an insanely depressing country with horrendous and inhumane politics all the way around.

Antifar posted...

Even by my understanding of Pizzagate, she didn't "have" that store.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory

something about her campaign manager having his email hacked and people discovering secret codes to the pizzeria rape dungeon. i dont know, i skimmed the first paragraph its psychotic.

---