Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Smoove_B »

I guess they're going to go back to just saying the quiet parts out loud instead of using a bullhorn:
Conservative Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene is scrapping the planned launch of her "America First" caucus after receiving blowback from leaders in her own party, despite confirming through a spokesperson on Friday that the caucus would launch.
Nick Dyer, Greene's spokesperson, told CNN in an email on Saturday afternoon the Georgia Republican is not "launching anything."
"The Congresswoman wants to make clear that she is not launching anything. This was an early planning proposal and nothing was agreed to or approved," he said in an email to CNN, referring to a flier promoting the caucus, obtained by Punchbowl News, that used inflammatory rhetoric.

He added that "she didn't approve that language and has no plans to launch anything."
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
Zaxxon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 28118
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:11 am
Location: Surrounded by Mountains

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Zaxxon »

'Inflammatory rhetoric' is another phrase that needs to be retired by news outlets (like 'false claim'). Just call it racist bullshit.
User avatar
Carpet_pissr
Posts: 19978
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:32 pm
Location: Columbia, SC

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Carpet_pissr »

Smoove_B wrote: Sat Apr 17, 2021 8:51 pm I guess they're going to go back to just saying the quiet parts out loud instead of using a bullhorn:
Conservative Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene is scrapping the planned launch of her "America First" caucus after receiving blowback from leaders in her own party, despite confirming through a spokesperson on Friday that the caucus would launch.
Nick Dyer, Greene's spokesperson, told CNN in an email on Saturday afternoon the Georgia Republican is not "launching anything."
"The Congresswoman wants to make clear that she is not launching anything. This was an early planning proposal and nothing was agreed to or approved," he said in an email to CNN, referring to a flier promoting the caucus, obtained by Punchbowl News, that used inflammatory rhetoric.

He added that "she didn't approve that language and has no plans to launch anything."
Funny how big a game so many of these Q-holes talk, until someone gets canceled, or they get their feelings hurt, or seemingly get any pushback at all. FOLD!!!
Pussies.

I was actually glad that this caucus was put forward - kind of a containment/observation situation for those of us who aren't white supremacists. You align with that racists bullshit? Fine, go declare your fealty to that caucus so we know who you are. Instead of spewing your vile ideas in the shadows, and pretending you are part of the mainstream GOP. At least the IDEA of the former mainstream GOP, I should probably say. :(
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28906
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Holman »

Floating the idea and then pulling it back is still Mission Accomplished.

It waves the flag for white supremacy and then gets to claim victimhood under Cancel Culture.

Everyone susceptible to the message received the message.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by malchior »

Rehab tour and/or the GOP culture is poison until you're out of it?

dfs
Posts: 2170
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 11:48 am
Location: Top of the bass clef.

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by dfs »

Former House Speaker John Boehner says gun legislation would be a top priority for him if he were still in office, calling recent mass shootings "heartbreaking" and "embarrassing"

Of course he can say that now. He doesn't have to get elected. If he said that while in office, he would get primaried w/out a doubt.
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28906
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Holman »

Didn't he squash the possibility of gun legislation after Sandy Hook?
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Smoove_B »

He sure did. Arguably THE moment in time that should have kicked off change. Instead, it was just another shooting.

Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41243
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by El Guapo »

It is interesting to ponder what's going on with Boehner. He's going out of his way to go after the current Republican crazies, more than he has to. There is a degree to which every generation of radicals winds up getting eclipsed by the next generation of radicals, which allows them to say that "we can't be that crazy, given how crazy *these* guys are"). Which is both not inaccurate and also at the same time obscures the damage done by the prior radicals. To some degree I imagine that it's a mix of that and reflection upon retirement (and I don't doubt that the frustration that he felt having to deal with the likes of Ted Cruz and the Freedom Caucus was genuine), and probably a cynical desire to preserve his legacy for history (and to be more welcome in non-MAGA polite society).

At least he's going after the Republican crazies of the day, I suppose.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41243
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by El Guapo »

I just saw that he also said that he voted for Trump in 2020. So like, either he's not really genuine here, or he's an idiot.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 70097
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by LordMortis »

Not mutually exclusive from being an idiot, he could have just had his come to Jesus moment on, say, January 6th.
User avatar
stimpy
Posts: 6102
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 6:04 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by stimpy »

He REALLY needs to lay off the tanning bed time.....
He/Him/His/Porcupine
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by malchior »

User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 70097
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by LordMortis »

The party of religious freedom! unless you aren't Christian prescribed in manner this is approved by the GOP decision makers. Also, is 75% a way to mitigate against the tyranny of a minority in their ranks?
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28906
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Holman »

El Guapo wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 10:06 am It is interesting to ponder what's going on with Boehner. He's going out of his way to go after the current Republican crazies, more than he has to. There is a degree to which every generation of radicals winds up getting eclipsed by the next generation of radicals, which allows them to say that "we can't be that crazy, given how crazy *these* guys are"). Which is both not inaccurate and also at the same time obscures the damage done by the prior radicals. To some degree I imagine that it's a mix of that and reflection upon retirement (and I don't doubt that the frustration that he felt having to deal with the likes of Ted Cruz and the Freedom Caucus was genuine), and probably a cynical desire to preserve his legacy for history (and to be more welcome in non-MAGA polite society).

At least he's going after the Republican crazies of the day, I suppose.
Boehner is also deep into the corporate-board/lobbyist phase of his lifecycle. Given the way the winds are turning in corporate America, it probably benefits him personally to put some distance between himself and today's GOP.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by malchior »

Contemporary accounts of Boehner's Speakership also always indicated his position was more as a power player than a zealot. He just enforced that stupid Hastert rule. In a sense he is more McConnell than a Cruz but apparently with limits about how far he'll go. Though the difference could just be that McConnell doesn't need the money so he doesn't need to be more moderate.
User avatar
Carpet_pissr
Posts: 19978
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:32 pm
Location: Columbia, SC

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Carpet_pissr »

The contradictions could very well depend on WHEN you talk to "reformed" Boehner. Boozed up and high....or not. Answers and tone vary wildly.

Boozed up Boehner: "FUCK YOUR MOTHER TED CRUZ, YOU PUSSY!!!"
Non-boozed Boehner: "Back in MY day...."
User avatar
Skinypupy
Posts: 20331
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 10:12 am
Location: Utah

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Skinypupy »

Deeper and deeper down the derpy rabbit hole we go.


A county Republican Party organization in Minnesota recently hosted a dinner featuring a keynote speaker who told attendees that George Floyd’s murder was a hoax
I'd love to say these are just fringe loonys, but... :?
When darkness veils the world, four Warriors of Light shall come.
Freyland
Posts: 3041
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 11:03 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Freyland »

I feel like the term "derpy rabbit hole" is uncharacteristically off-base for this news story.
Sims 3 and signature unclear.
User avatar
Carpet_pissr
Posts: 19978
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:32 pm
Location: Columbia, SC

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Carpet_pissr »

Skinypupy wrote: Sat Apr 24, 2021 8:17 pm Deeper and deeper down the derpy rabbit hole we go.


A county Republican Party organization in Minnesota recently hosted a dinner featuring a keynote speaker who told attendees that George Floyd’s murder was a hoax
I'd love to say these are just fringe loonys, but... :?
An unnamed, generic "Republican Party organization (could be anything!) in Minnesota probably IS a fringe looney...entity. :D

Show me the shot of the audience and then we'll talk about fringe or not. Is it 6 people? 60?

Note: Did not read the article, so these questions may already be answered.
User avatar
Jaymann
Posts: 19317
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:13 pm
Location: California

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Jaymann »

I think even if it were 600 people it could pretty reliably be considered fringe.
Jaymann
]==(:::::::::::::>
Black Lives Matter
User avatar
Skinypupy
Posts: 20331
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 10:12 am
Location: Utah

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Skinypupy »

My point was that while this particular speaker for this small county gathering may be considered “fringe”, this same rhetoric is being pushed at every level of the party.

A large percentage of them fully support it (publicly, anyways), which makes it feel less than “fringe”.
When darkness veils the world, four Warriors of Light shall come.
User avatar
Little Raven
Posts: 8608
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:26 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Little Raven »

I don't know that I completely agree with this, but I think elements are interesting.
One is about the strange condition of American conservatism, in which two crises, one normal and one existential, are happening at once.

The normal crisis is a party crisis, the sort that afflicts all political coalitions. The Republican Party 40 years ago coalesced around a set of appeals that enabled its leaders to win large presidential majorities and set the national agenda. At a certain point the issue landscape changed, so did the country’s demographics, and the G.O.P. has struggled to adapt — cycling through compassionate conservatism, Tea Party conservatism and Trumpist populism without reproducing Ronald Reagan’s success.

Seen from this vantage point, the Republican Party’s current craziness comes from being in an extended, Groundhog Day version of the Democratic Party’s 1980s situation, in which the party’s rebuilds keep failing, but our era’s greater partisan polarization still keeps the right electorally competitive. In which case you can imagine, eventually, a potentially normal resolution, in which Republicans adapt and win real popular majorities again, or fail and diminish into true minority status until their craziness abates.

But beneath this party crisis there is the deeper one, having to do with what conservatism under a liberal order exists to actually conserve.

One powerful answer is that conservatism-under-liberalism should defend human goods that are threatened by liberal ideas taken to extremes. The family, when liberal freedom becomes a corrosive hyper-individualism. Traditional religion, when liberal toleration becomes a militant and superstitious secularism. Local community and local knowledge, against expert certainty and bureaucratic centralization. Artistic and intellectual greatness, when democratic taste turns philistine or liberal intellectuals become apparatchiks. The individual talent of the entrepreneur or businessman, against the leveling impulses of egalitarianism and the stultifying power of monopoly.

Needless to say the right hasn’t always fought these battles well or wisely. But the fights have given conservatives a clear stake in the liberal order, a reason to be invested in its institutions and controversies even if, on occasion, they might doubt that some of its premises are true.

So the question, then, is what happens when the reasons for that investment weaken, when the things the right imagines itself conserving seem to slip away?

What does it mean to conserve the family in an era when not just the two-parent household but childbearing and sex itself are in eclipse? What does it mean to defend traditional religion in a country where institutional faith is either bunkered or rapidly declining? How do you defend localism when the internet seems to nationalize every political and cultural debate? What does the conservation of the West’s humanistic traditions mean when pop repetition rules the culture, and the great universities are increasingly hostile to even the Democratic-voting sort of cultural conservative?
/. "She climbed backwards out her
\/ window into Outside Over There."
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28906
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Holman »

Little Raven wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 7:08 pm I don't know that I completely agree with this, but I think elements are interesting.
As usual, Douthat fails to stick the landing.
What does it mean to conserve the family in an era when not just the two-parent household but childbearing and sex itself are in eclipse?
Right-wing attempts to "conserve the family" are generally attempts to suppress and deny status to those alternative models of family life that have actually been very successful when allowed equal status and societal encouragement. Likewise "sex itself," by which I presume Ross means traditionally restrictive gender norms. (I'm pretty sure people haven't given up fucking.)
What does it mean to defend traditional religion in a country where institutional faith is either bunkered or rapidly declining?
It means the Right's extremist turn towards Christian nationalism has alienated what might have been religion's next generation of believers.
What does the conservation of the West’s humanistic traditions mean when pop repetition rules the culture, and the great universities are increasingly hostile to even the Democratic-voting sort of cultural conservative?
Of noes! The teachers are teaching critical thinking even about The Western Tradition!! What would Socrates think??
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by malchior »

Holman wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 8:48 pmAs usual, Douthat fails to stick the landing.
Yup - when I read the quoted text above I was completely unsold. Then I clicked the link and was unsurprised. I don't know why the NY Times can't find a conservative who isn't nearly always wrong. They definitely exist. The Atlantic is richer for having David Frum for instance.

I think its wrong almost all the way down from the get. He starts by comparing the GOP to Democrats in the 80s who suffered through multiple "rebuilds". No. The GOP has suffered from waves of reactionary takeovers all running a game plan that was laid out to move the government intentionally in this direction. For that reason, IMO they've never suffered from a lack of focus in the way that Douhat implies. The most important thing is that society didn't come along with them so they've reacted by doubling down on their bad theory and changing the rules. I think that is what he fails to see or wants to acknowledge.
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82085
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Isgrimnur »

How about Gary Abernathy?
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) is among the progressive lawmakers whose blunt, liberal outspokenness regularly annoys me. Recently, she particularly upset me while discussing the latest congressional study of reparations for descendants of enslaved people, when she said, “If you through your history benefited from that wrong that was done, then you must be willing to commit yourself to righting that wrong.”

Only this time I was bothered because her comments hit home.
...
It is a tenet of conservatism that a level playing field is all we should guarantee. But that’s meaningless if one team starts with an unsurmountable lead before play even begins.

It’s not necessary to experience “White guilt” or buy into the notion of “White privilege,” a pejorative that to me suggests Whites possess something they should lose, when in fact such benefits should extend to all. Supporting reparations simply requires a universal agreement to work toward, as Jayapal said, “righting that wrong.”
It's almost as if people are the problem.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by malchior »

Isgrimnur wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 11:49 pmHow about Gary Abernathy
Most of what he wrote above isn't too off base though there are some problems with it. Most of his writing is fairly even keeled but it is still injected with this notion of persecution of conservatives. Abernathy is/was a Trump booster who talked about the good that Trump did for conservatism. He had a clear divide with Trump on 1/6. He however was not upset enough to see the cesspool that "modern conservatism" has become.
It will be easy for Biden to offer platitudes that please his supporters and earn him plaudits from the mainstream media. Instead, Biden could actually extend a meaningful olive branch. As of this writing, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other digital platforms have severed or restricted Trump’s ability to communicate with the American people. Parler, an alternative to Twitter, has been targeted by Apple, Google and Amazon in ways that make its continued existence nearly impossible. These actions reflect the typical take-it-or-leave-it arrogance of virtual monopolies.

In the current environment, conservatives are rightfully alarmed at the prospect of crucial digital platforms being pulled out from under them in response to the support they express for a particular politician or idea. The tech giants are private entities claiming to be following their guidelines, not government agencies violating the First Amendment, but a president can use his bully pulpit to influence their actions.

There are those who say that Trump abused social media to incite violence. Others read the same tweets and disagree. More disturbing than anything Trump could tweet, though, is the fact that the highest elected officeholder in the land could have his voice virtually silenced by the whims of a handful of unelected Silicon Valley bullies.

On Jan. 20, Biden can reassure all freedom-loving Americans, “I vehemently disagree with — and am often repulsed by — nearly everything that Donald Trump and many of his followers say. But in America, we defend the right of others to say things that we may find repugnant. We respond to those who use their words to express hate, ignorance and lies not by forcibly silencing them, but by answering them with love, education and truth.”

Biden could address common justifications used by Big Tech to ban certain people or groups by saying, “Yes, in the United States, freedom is often abused. But it’s better to identify those who plan violence or anarchy so we can respond, when necessary, with preemptive action. What we should not fall prey to is the temptation to silence the voices of millions of peaceful and patriotic Americans by eliminating their preferred platforms because of a few bad actors. That’s not who we are as Americans.”
User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 21196
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Grifman »

Skinypupy wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 7:05 pm My point was that while this particular speaker for this small county gathering may be considered “fringe”, this same rhetoric is being pushed at every level of the party.

A large percentage of them fully support it (publicly, anyways), which makes it feel less than “fringe”.
Can't find the article right now but read one recently that the radical Trumpist wing of the party is taking control of the local Republican organizations in many counties/states. That's why you are seeing such crazy stuff at the local level. This trend further bodes ill for the future sanity of the party as what happens locally eventually happens nationally on a delayed basis.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
pr0ner
Posts: 17424
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, VA
Contact:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by pr0ner »

Skinypupy wrote: Sat Apr 24, 2021 8:17 pm Deeper and deeper down the derpy rabbit hole we go.


A county Republican Party organization in Minnesota recently hosted a dinner featuring a keynote speaker who told attendees that George Floyd’s murder was a hoax
I'd love to say these are just fringe loonys, but... :?
Don't forget Mike Lindell likely wants to run for governor in MN.
Hodor.
User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 51301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by hepcat »

New Gingritch believes flying the rainbow flag for Gay Pride season is Un-American.

76 percent of all Americans feel that LGBTQ rights are welcome in this country. So when Newt says
“Look, I think that the left has decided they’re going to try to push all the regular Americans into a corner where they either have to fight, in which case they’ll be attacked by the news media, or they have to just cave and hide,”
What he really means is a minority of bigoted assholes in this country feel threatened.
Covfefe!
User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 70097
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by LordMortis »

Look, I think that the left has decided they’re going to try to push all the regular Americans
Because regular Americans are mutually exclusive from "the left."
User avatar
YellowKing
Posts: 30125
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:02 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by YellowKing »

hepcat wrote:76 percent of all Americans feel that LGBTQ rights are welcome in this country. So when Newt says
This is why I think the doubling down on crazy the GOP is doing is ultimately a recipe for disaster. There are a wide variety of positions (sensible gun control, climate change, etc.) that an overwhelming majority of Americans support that the GOP has on their hit list. I'm not sure "taking policy positions that a vast majority of people don't support" is the secret to political dominance.
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Smoove_B »

YellowKing wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 1:22 pm I'm not sure "taking policy positions that a vast majority of people don't support" is the secret to political dominance.
When they've figured out a way to nudge the system so that they keep getting elected, it's a problem. Not only when it allows them to pass horrific legislation to "Make America Great Again" but also when it allows them to just make sure no one else can get anything done.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
YellowKing
Posts: 30125
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:02 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by YellowKing »

They wouldn't have to nudge the system and resort to cheating if their political positions were winning over mainstream America. I'm not denying their tactics are a problem, but those tactics are a result of them being the party of an ever-shrinking base.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by malchior »

YellowKing wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 1:59 pm They wouldn't have to nudge the system and resort to cheating if their political positions were winning over mainstream America. I'm not denying their tactics are a problem, but those tactics are a result of them being the party of an ever-shrinking base.
Sure but they have the power and will to double down on bad policy. And they have a solid record of success in the past doing this. Why change when you know you'll keep the folks who'll go along if you just cheat some more?
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41243
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by El Guapo »

YellowKing wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 1:59 pm They wouldn't have to nudge the system and resort to cheating if their political positions were winning over mainstream America. I'm not denying their tactics are a problem, but those tactics are a result of them being the party of an ever-shrinking base.
I dunno, I think that gets the causality a little wrong. As it is, with their structural advantages the GOP could probably have a veto power over legislation (control at least one of the House, Senate, or Presidency, plus disproportionate influence over the courts) maybe 90% of the time if they ran on mainstream popular conservative ideas. McConnellism trades on that advantage, such that they'll still win ~ 60% of the time, but will get to enact a much more right wing agenda when they do, and will be able to hamstring policy when they don't.
Black Lives Matter.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by malchior »

This seems as good a place as any to plunk this down. I've never seen AP do anything like this.


GOP lawmakers in Arizona took possession of all ballots in its most populous county, and the machines that counted them, for an audit run by a consultancy with no election experience. Its owner has shared unfounded 2020 election conspiracy theories.
User avatar
Octavious
Posts: 20035
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 2:50 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Octavious »

I'm sure it will be a fair and partial review. :lol: He really opened Pandora's Box with all his bullshit. I totally can't wait until the next election. :P
Capitalism tries for a delicate balance: It attempts to work things out so that everyone gets just enough stuff to keep them from getting violent and trying to take other people’s stuff.

Shameless plug for my website: www.nettphoto.com
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82085
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Republican Party?

Post by Isgrimnur »

AZ Family
[Arizona Senate election audit officials refused to address a series of security lapses and problems exposed by Arizona's Family Investigates, the night before the controversial recount was to begin.

"I question why security wasn't already in place," said Karl de la Guerra, who is a protective services consultant with 43 years in the industry. De la Guerra was reacting to a video sent to him by Arizona's Family Investigates. The video exposed a lack of security at the Arizona Veteran's Memorial Coliseum, the audit location. State Senate Republicans are performing the audit, but doing so on a shoe-string budget. And critics argue that the company hired to lead the operation is run by a Trump supporter who had tweeted false conspiracy theories about the election.
...
Added to the challenges of securing the location is the cost. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office officials estimated it would have cost the county $175,000 for security alone, if the sheriff's office would have agreed to protect the site. Sheriff Paul Penzone declined, citing the cost and the effect taking those deputies off the street would have on public safety.
...
But on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, the Arizona's Family Investigates team gained access to the coliseum, its hallways, staircases and the main floor, where the computer equipment will be used by the auditors. The team was able to get close to the actual ballots and county computer equipment. At no time did anyone at the site ask the team to leave. At no time did the team enter through any doorway or entry that contained a "No Trespassing" or "Restricted Access" sign.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
Post Reply