Breaking News Time Magazine openly admits to a bi-partisan, elite lead rigging ("fortifying") of the election

[LindyAF]

TBH I just think the reason why it was more rigged at the presidential level was just incompetence. Inner City elections official tells another one they're gonna need 100 more Biden votes, they get 100 more Biden votes. Didn't mention downballot, so no downballot. IIRC was another thing that was weird about the election, Biden got a lot more votes without any downballot votes in I think it was Michigan than Trump did, by about a factor of 10.

Thus, if your main concern is the presidential race, you don't ballot stuff in districts that are normally close, you stuff them in districts your party OWNS. The Ds in the US have a much easier set up for doing this, as they tend to own districts that are also highly population dense, meaning they can stuff more without raising alarms, meanwhile the deep red districts where Republicans dominate tend to be low density rural districts where if they tried to stuff enough ballots to swing a statewide race it would be much more noticeable (due to the sudden spike in turnout above historical norms or more easily exceeding registered voters in said district).

I agree with some other stuff you've said, but I'm pretty sure this isn't right. House districts have different densities but roughly equal populations (within each state). Republicans should be able to manage this sort of stuff too. If they don't, it's not for that reason.

 

[JagerIV]

Well, from my recollection of people who looked at obvious cases of voter fraud, like the 1960 election, the Republicans cheated as well. However, I think you overstate how easy that actually is. Lets look at, well, to use the epicenter of the 1960 election, chicago.

Illinois's congressional districts - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So, right now, Illinois has 18 congressional districts, broken along a 13 d to 5 Republicans. So, about a 70-30 split. The last election was about 60-40% split, so the Democrats actually over index a bit compared to their share of the vote. This is driven in part by how overwhelming Chicago is in the state. Of the 18 congressional districts, 10 of them are thoroughly Chicago districts. Thus, democrat districts are by default some 55% of the population by state districting by default, just on Chicago. Even assuming everything outside Chicago was 100% republican controlled, its impossible for the rest of the State to out stuff Chicago.

And of course, the ability to cheat is benefited as he said by having a relatively few people needing to be involved. Thus, lets say each party had 10 corrupt polling stations that would fix votes. Assuming the parties had full freedom to choose their corrupt polling stations among areas they have a great deal of local control over, I would not be suprised if the the top 10 democrat stronghold polling stations had 10x the population of the top 10 most populous republican stronghold polling stations. So, if say even the democrat polling stations had 1,000 residents a piece, and the Republicans only had 500 residents a piece, and they were both 20+% districts, cheating pushing the margin of victory up by an additional 10% in each polling place adds 1,000 more votes to the dems vs 500 for the republicans.

A Republican vote stuffing operation thus has to be a much larger scale operation.

 

[Jormungandr]

This is a lot easier to answer than you might think? Firstly, the Dems won a lot of seats in the Senate comparatively. Yes, fewer than they EXPECTED, but they still won it. As to the results in the House...

I'm not taking a firm stance saying that the fix was in, but from a logistics and execution standpoint, to influence the Presidential race you need only a handful of cities to put out enough votes to flip the states. This could theoretically be done by just a few precincts in said city, creating a very limited number of people involved (important for opsec) while also giving cover for the flood of votes (these are already high D areas and the US never has 100% turnout, so your suddenly influx of D votes doesn't look as suspicious).

Meanwhile to impact the House races you need a much larger and spread out operation, you'd need to corrupt the process in dozens to scores of precincts, some of which are much lower in population density and are frequently very close races (which means flooding them with D votes will raise a lot of red flags, whereas a precinct going from 85% D to 90% D doesn't really look weird but can represent thousands if not tens of thousands of votes).

To explain the math using simple numbers, let's say you have a district which has 1000 voters. It normally has a turnout of 50% (so 500 votes are usually cast) and the vote splits 80% D 20% R. This means 400 Votes for the D and 100 for the R. If you stuff in an extra 100 Votes for the D in this district you'd push turnout to 60%, which for a divisive Presidential election isn't THAT weird, while only changing the vote split to 86% - 14%... not that weird of a swing.

Compare that to say a district with similar attributes that normally splits close to 50-50. You stuff an extra 100 ballots for the D there and suddenly the vote has swung from 50-50 to 71-29. That's a MASSIVE swing and looks weird when combined with the uptick of turnout that all HAPPENED to go to the D. People are going to go "why did this normally perfectly purple district suddenly turn deep blue?" You don't normally see districts swing that fast and by that much.

Thus, if your main concern is the presidential race, you don't ballot stuff in districts that are normally close, you stuff them in districts your party OWNS. The Ds in the US have a much easier set up for doing this, as they tend to own districts that are also highly population dense, meaning they can stuff more without raising alarms, meanwhile the deep red districts where Republicans dominate tend to be low density rural districts where if they tried to stuff enough ballots to swing a statewide race it would be much more noticeable (due to the sudden spike in turnout above historical norms or more easily exceeding registered voters in said district).

Thus the House races being out of sync with the Presidential race is not really a good argument against concerns of voter fraud via ballot stuffing. The logistics of ballot stuffing make it so that influencing Houses races via that method is much more difficult and requires a larger organization, whereas ballot stuffing for the Presidential race requires very little infrastructure, and can be made harder to detect as part of normal statistical noise than using that method to influence the vote for the House of Representatives.

I just feel sorta sad for America, now.

People were so hyped up on the "evil Drumph" shtick peddled for so long that they're willing to deny or overlook the obvious electoral fraud (and the complete mockery of America's fundamental principles) because it just got him out of office. That shortsightedness, among a hell of other foreboding portents they ignored or missed, meant that the blinders attached to their proverbial faces had them unable (or uncaring) to see that Biden is exactly what "Drumph" was spouted to be for years!

Even if there is some deity out there that is pissed off with Biden and offs him with a heart attack or a bit of frozen plane shit caving in his skull, you'd still have Kamala -- who is immensely disliked by her own party! And if a million-to-one double-death does happen, like she somehow chokes on her own hypocrisy, you have Pelosi.

And now they're in power after blatantly cheating, I guarantee you that they'll do all they can to hold on to power -- every underhanded trick in the book, legal and possibly illegal -- to further their batshit crazy agendas.

Frankly, this is why I don't think grassroots from Right-aligned people will work, now. In a fair world? Yeah. But you're trying to play chess while your opponent is changing the rules on a whim and rigging the board with landmines. "The only winning move is not to play" can't apply because the alternative is pretty much social brainwashing and proverbial death.

 

[Vaermina]

I just feel sorta sad for America, now.

People were so hyped up on the "evil Drumph" shtick peddled for so long that they're willing to deny or overlook the obvious electoral fraud (and the complete mockery of America's fundamental principles) because it just got him out of office. That shortsightedness, among a hell of other foreboding portents they ignored or missed, meant that the blinders attached to their proverbial faces had them unable (or uncaring) to see that Biden is exactly what "Drumph" was spouted to be for years!

Even if there is some deity out there that is pissed off with Biden and offs him with a heart attack or a bit of frozen plane shit caving in his skull, you'd still have Kamala -- who is immensely disliked by her own party! And if a million-to-one double-death does happen, like she somehow chokes on her own hypocrisy, you have Pelosi.

And now they're in power after blatantly cheating, I guarantee you that they'll do all they can to hold on to power -- every underhanded trick in the book, legal and possibly illegal -- to further their batshit crazy agendas.

Frankly, this is why I don't think grassroots from Right-aligned people will work, now. In a fair world? Yeah. But you're trying to play chess while your opponent is changing the rules on a whim and rigging the board with landmines. "The only winning move is not to play" can't apply because the alternative is pretty much social brainwashing and proverbial death.

A big thing that let them get away with this is that court cases are slow.

So all the lawsuits and investigations, they are still ongoing, and will end up overturning a lot of the snap things that let them get away with stuff.

 

[Captain X]

Actually the argument that all these seats flipped for Republicans while Biden got the most votes evar always struck me as pretty strange - it's suggesting that a lot of people who otherwise voted Republican voted for a man who represents the complete opposite of their own party platform. If anything, this seems to support the idea that there was some algorithm that was switching Trump votes to Biden and only those votes. To say nothing of all those mysterious unfolded mail-in ballots that only had the bubble for Biden filled in (seemingly printed by computer rather than filled in by pen) and nothing else down-ballot.

 

[Zachowon]

Actually the argument that all these seats flipped for Republicans while Biden got the most votes evar always struck me as pretty strange - it's suggesting that a lot of people who otherwise voted Republican voted for a man who represents the complete opposite of their own party platform. If anything, this seems to support the idea that there was some algorithm that was switching Trump votes to Biden and only those votes. To say nothing of all those mysterious unfolded mail-in ballots that only had the bubble for Biden filled in (seemingly printed by computer rather than filled in by pen) and nothing else down-ballot.

Most claimed Anti Trumpers were that powerful

 

[Airedale260]

This is a lot easier to answer than you might think? Firstly, the Dems won a lot of seats in the Senate comparatively. Yes, fewer than they EXPECTED, but they still won it. As to the results in the House...

I'm not taking a firm stance saying that the fix was in, but from a logistics and execution standpoint, to influence the Presidential race you need only a handful of cities to put out enough votes to flip the states. This could theoretically be done by just a few precincts in said city, creating a very limited number of people involved (important for opsec) while also giving cover for the flood of votes (these are already high D areas and the US never has 100% turnout, so your suddenly influx of D votes doesn't look as suspicious).

Meanwhile to impact the House races you need a much larger and spread out operation, you'd need to corrupt the process in dozens to scores of precincts, some of which are much lower in population density and are frequently very close races (which means flooding them with D votes will raise a lot of red flags, whereas a precinct going from 85% D to 90% D doesn't really look weird but can represent thousands if not tens of thousands of votes).

To explain the math using simple numbers, let's say you have a district which has 1000 voters. It normally has a turnout of 50% (so 500 votes are usually cast) and the vote splits 80% D 20% R. This means 400 Votes for the D and 100 for the R. If you stuff in an extra 100 Votes for the D in this district you'd push turnout to 60%, which for a divisive Presidential election isn't THAT weird, while only changing the vote split to 86% - 14%... not that weird of a swing.

Compare that to say a district with similar attributes that normally splits close to 50-50. You stuff an extra 100 ballots for the D there and suddenly the vote has swung from 50-50 to 71-29. That's a MASSIVE swing and looks weird when combined with the uptick of turnout that all HAPPENED to go to the D. People are going to go "why did this normally perfectly purple district suddenly turn deep blue?" You don't normally see districts swing that fast and by that much.

Thus, if your main concern is the presidential race, you don't ballot stuff in districts that are normally close, you stuff them in districts your party OWNS. The Ds in the US have a much easier set up for doing this, as they tend to own districts that are also highly population dense, meaning they can stuff more without raising alarms, meanwhile the deep red districts where Republicans dominate tend to be low density rural districts where if they tried to stuff enough ballots to swing a statewide race it would be much more noticeable (due to the sudden spike in turnout above historical norms or more easily exceeding registered voters in said district).

Thus the House races being out of sync with the Presidential race is not really a good argument against concerns of voter fraud via ballot stuffing. The logistics of ballot stuffing make it so that influencing Houses races via that method is much more difficult and requires a larger organization, whereas ballot stuffing for the Presidential race requires very little infrastructure, and can be made harder to detect as part of normal statistical noise than using that method to influence the vote for the House of Representatives.

But in the areas where you’d expect an overwhelming Democrat majority, like the inner cities, would be the focus of that. The thing is, Trump actually did better in these areas in 2020 than 2016. It was the suburbs where the shift went to Biden.

Which makes sense: plenty of inner city voters know that policies popular in the suburbs and among the goofballs actually screw them (the urban dwellers) the most.

Again, there has been so much hearsay and so many things where opportunities to prove this fraud in court were provided, and the Trump campaign didn’t even bother to try and argue the alleged fraud.

I don’t think it was a completely clean election...there’s been evidence of local level malfeasance in others. But I do think actions speak far louder than words, and based on the actions taken in court versus Trump’s tweets (since he and the campaign can actually be hit with criminal and civil sanctions for misleading claims, and his history of playing fast and loose with the truth (not to mention his prior trafficking in conspiracy theories) make it impossible for me to take him seriously.

Actually the argument that all these seats flipped for Republicans while Biden got the most votes evar always struck me as pretty strange - it's suggesting that a lot of people who otherwise voted Republican voted for a man who represents the complete opposite of their own party platform. If anything, this seems to support the idea that there was some algorithm that was switching Trump votes to Biden and only those votes. To say nothing of all those mysterious unfolded mail-in ballots that only had the bubble for Biden filled in (seemingly printed by computer rather than filled in by pen) and nothing else down-ballot.

As @Zachowon said, the level of anti-Trump feeling among the GOP is quite powerful, as are the leaders of it. And statements like “RINOs need to be purged!” despite the alleged RINOs being far more consistently conservative in policy and outlook mean those same people, who have been leading the charge to move towards being a party who has consistent control of Congress and lawmaking ability, mean that they are going to fire right back at a man who prior to 2015 was a lifelong Democrat.

A hatred for and a desire to take down enemies (real or perceived) is quite strong. Even if it means handing one branch to a doddering idiot for four years while the party works to find a candidate who doesn’t alienate swing voters and constantly shoot his mouth off on Twitter without thinking is an acceptable outcome if there is a GOP majority in place in at least one house of Congress to keep the damage to the minimum.

Or, at least, that was the plan, and even the day after the Senate races were over it looked very likely to work. Except Trump kept trying to direct everyone’s attention to him, even after he kept getting shot down in the courts, and annoying people because he just wouldn’t stop whining, which even he admitted is his legal “strategy” in civil cases (as opposed to winning on the merits, because he’s almost always doomed to fail on that...)...continuing right into the Georgia races, when he told his supporters their votes didn’t matter, while still airing complaints about his own race, which by that point was two months old, thereby suppressing his own voter base while energizing the opposition’s.

In other words, the plan (which wasn’t great but to a lot of Never Trumpers was the best of a bad situation) failed because Trump did the exact opposite of what any politician tries to do in a race. It was something so illogical that everybody was floored at that level of incompetence.

So on the sum of all that, plus his behavior since the Georgia elections? All it does is reinforce the view that yes, Trump is that reviled by independents and plenty of traditional conservatives, so him narrowly losing is far more plausible than things like the Supreme Court shouting at each other over an alleged fear of the hard left (especially when the court hadn’t met in person for several weeks).

 

[Zachowon]

I was just saying that is an argument. I still say it was a fraudulent electiom

 

[Captain X]

And if the idiot "never-Trump"ers were that frothing at the mouth about it, they could have done better than to vote for Biden. Hell, just not voting would have been better, let alone doing write-ins or voting third party. I'm not a Trump fan myself, but I would still have much rather had him in charge than Biden, to the point that while I will almost always vote Libertarian, I voted Trump this year.

 

[LindyAF]

A big thing that let them get away with this is that court cases are slow.

So all the lawsuits and investigations, they are still ongoing, and will end up overturning a lot of the snap things that let them get away with stuff.

As far as I'm aware, every court case that had a chance of overturning anything was thrown out. And that was only really the Texas case. Maybe there some stuff still out there that will nail a couple people, but there is no outstanding court case that is going to change things meaningfully here.

Frankly, this is why I don't think grassroots from Right-aligned people will work, now. In a fair world? Yeah. But you're trying to play chess while your opponent is changing the rules on a whim and rigging the board with landmines. "The only winning move is not to play" can't apply because the alternative is pretty much social brainwashing and proverbial death.

Honestly, the biggest upside of getting involved and getting organized is that you will meet likeminded local people. I am also not just saying you will meet people who are conservative. I am saying that however right wing you are, there are fellow travelers in conservative orgs that are publicly moderate enough that it is safe to join.

I am not saying we should lose while keeping the moral high, that we should keep trying to metaphorically play chess. Any tactic requires people. The people who determine the plays are the ones who show up and do it. You think it should be done different? I agree. That's only going to change by showing up and getting organized.

You want to start rigging the board with landmines (In Minecraft) too? That starts with knowing people IRL.

And hell, another way to think about is this: if the shit hits the fan? You're going to want to know some reliable people and have a group. Three or four buddies to watch your back is almost certainly worth more than your five hundredth can of beans or crate of ammo.

 

[GoldRanger]

I beg your pardon? What "narrative" have I put forth? Kindly provide exact quotes, because I do not recall making any claims about the veracity of the video or about election fraud claims - all I did was point out that your links did not actually support your own claims.

As for your new links, let's see...

The first one is from wdet.org and is dated November 10th, 2020, in regards to claims made back then, and do not address the actual video, again because said video was not available at that time. Ergo, the link is irrelevant as it regards the video, much like your previous links.

The second one, from democracydocket.com, is a scan of a court document that effectively alleges that not enough evidence of voter fraud was provided to the court... on November 3rd, 2020. Before the video was available. Ergo, this is also irrelevant to the subject at hand. Further, your claim of "has to be accurate under penalty of felony" is only relevant to evidence provided in said court case, and is irrelevant to evidence provided outside or after said court case. Furthermore, the threat of penalty of felony has not prevented people from filing false information or falsified documents in quite literally hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of court cases across the United States in the past couple decades alone, let alone its entire history. The existence of a threat in itself does nothing to prevent the existence of false or incorrect information in potentia; court mandates do not equate to natural law of the universe, if that is what you believe.

The third one, from detroitnews.com... dates from November 20th, 2020, when the video was not available. How interesting. That means it is also irrelevant to the discussion of the veracity of the video itself.

Airedale. I see two possibilities, here:
Either 1: You are not actually checking the links you provide before linking them, for whatever reason.
Or 2: You are intentionally trying to obfuscate the issue by providing large amounts of information in the hopes that people will not actually double-check the information thus linked.

Now, I do not personally know you, nor am I familiar with your posting history, so I will not speculate on whether possibility 1 or possibility 2 is the correct one. However, I will say this, regardless of which of the two is correct: You may wish to take a break. Debating in bad faith, whether by negligence or intent, is not good form, and I humbly suggest that you stop.

I will let Rocinante handle the parts addressed to him. For my part, I will bow out for the moment, as I have guests coming over. Good day.

He's clearly just doing a quick google search on something like: "election fraud ballots debunked" and pasting the few first links in the search here without reading them. "Effort".

 

[Terthna]

He's clearly just doing a quick google search on something like: "election fraud ballots debunked" and pasting the few first links in the search here without reading them. "Effort".

It's something I've done on occasion, when I became flustered arguing with someone a bit too strongly (stronger than I could reasonably justify), and didn't actually have any evidence on hand to support my position. It's almost always been something I immediately regretted.

 

[GoldRanger]

It's something I've done on occasion, when I became flustered arguing with someone a bit too strongly (stronger than I could reasonably justify), and didn't actually have any evidence on hand to support my position. It's almost always been something I immediately regretted.

Everyone does it on occasion I think (I know that I do), it's not like it's a great sin or anything. Just not a super strong position from which to argue.

 

[S'task]

But in the areas where you’d expect an overwhelming Democrat majority, like the inner cities, would be the focus of that. The thing is, Trump actually did better in these areas in 2020 than 2016. It was the suburbs where the shift went to Biden.

Which makes sense: plenty of inner city voters know that policies popular in the suburbs and among the goofballs actually screw them (the urban dwellers) the most.

Again, there has been so much hearsay and so many things where opportunities to prove this fraud in court were provided, and the Trump campaign didn’t even bother to try and argue the alleged fraud.

I don’t think it was a completely clean election...there’s been evidence of local level malfeasance in others. But I do think actions speak far louder than words, and based on the actions taken in court versus Trump’s tweets (since he and the campaign can actually be hit with criminal and civil sanctions for misleading claims, and his history of playing fast and loose with the truth (not to mention his prior trafficking in conspiracy theories) make it impossible for me to take him seriously.




As @Zachowon said, the level of anti-Trump feeling among the GOP is quite powerful, as are the leaders of it. And statements like “RINOs need to be purged!” despite the alleged RINOs being far more consistently conservative in policy and outlook mean those same people, who have been leading the charge to move towards being a party who has consistent control of Congress and lawmaking ability, mean that they are going to fire right back at a man who prior to 2015 was a lifelong Democrat.

A hatred for and a desire to take down enemies (real or perceived) is quite strong. Even if it means handing one branch to a doddering idiot for four years while the party works to find a candidate who doesn’t alienate swing voters and constantly shoot his mouth off on Twitter without thinking is an acceptable outcome if there is a GOP majority in place in at least one house of Congress to keep the damage to the minimum.

Or, at least, that was the plan, and even the day after the Senate races were over it looked very likely to work. Except Trump kept trying to direct everyone’s attention to him, even after he kept getting shot down in the courts, and annoying people because he just wouldn’t stop whining, which even he admitted is his legal “strategy” in civil cases (as opposed to winning on the merits, because he’s almost always doomed to fail on that...)...continuing right into the Georgia races, when he told his supporters their votes didn’t matter, while still airing complaints about his own race, which by that point was two months old, thereby suppressing his own voter base while energizing the opposition’s.

In other words, the plan (which wasn’t great but to a lot of Never Trumpers was the best of a bad situation) failed because Trump did the exact opposite of what any politician tries to do in a race. It was something so illogical that everybody was floored at that level of incompetence.

So on the sum of all that, plus his behavior since the Georgia elections? All it does is reinforce the view that yes, Trump is that reviled by independents and plenty of traditional conservatives, so him narrowly losing is far more plausible than things like the Supreme Court shouting at each other over an alleged fear of the hard left (especially when the court hadn’t met in person for several weeks).

This is revisionism of the highest order. Georgia was not lost because of Trump. He might share some blame, I'll grant, but not sole blame. In point of fact, there is actually a single explicit point that altered the trajectory of the Georgia Senate runoffs and it had nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with McConnell and the Senate, as National Review reported on before the runoffs (but conveniently for their TDS addled editors buried in the aftermath) polling shifted on the runoff races DRAMATICALLY once McConnell refused to let a clean vote on increasing the stimulus payouts to $2k and allowed the Republicans to be held responsible for it. Had that not happened, regardless of Trump, there's a good chance both Rs would have won.

 

[FriedCFour]

As @Zachowon said, the level of anti-Trump feeling among the GOP is quite powerful, as are the leaders of it.

I don’t think that’s true at all. The Lincoln Project seems totally astroturfed and two thirds of the GOP would totally switch parties just for Trump. That also doesn’t even necessarily mean that the remaining 1/3rd would not vote for him or dislike him, as he ultimately still got more votes than any Republican ever. The Pro-Trump sentiment is higher for him than any Republican candidate ever because of two things. One, pushing back on the culture war. The evidence of this is things like the MAGA hat, making it a symbol to wear to be willing to take a stand even in the face of a whole bunch of people hating you and thinking it’s the equivalent of a Nazi armband. It’s something the mainstream right has utterly failed to do, which is really fight back. The other would be on the policy pushed, which I think is vastly better for the country, more patriotic, and more traditionally conservative than what the Neocons have held. The only major detraction of Trump is in personal moral character really, but lately even Never Trump figures haven’t held that out. It’s just funny to me too how Never Trump tries to claim the mantle of the real, or traditional, or principled conservative, because I don’t think that is at all justified on any of those positions and is purely a propaganda tool. I think that Paleoconservatism holds that the most, and Paleocons should and mainly do love Trump.

 

[f1onagher]

So most coverage I've seen about this is from right wing sources. What is the left side of the aisle saying about this? Is there any discussion about this over on our sister sites or anything? I'm not used to seeing a story this big fly by without the spin brigade chipping in.

 

[LindyAF]

So most coverage I've seen about this is from right wing sources. What is the left side of the aisle saying about this? Is there any discussion about this over on our sister sites or anything? I'm not used to seeing a story this big fly by without the spin brigade chipping in.

From what I've seen, on the left insofar as it's discussed it's only really about how we're reacting to it (meaning the right wing in general, not specific The Sietch). Generally what I've seen is limited to
1) The article says "fortified" not "stole"
2) Nothing explicitly admitted to in the article was illegal

I don't see any separate threads on it on SB or SV, although there's probably some discussion on their general election threads.

 

[Jormungandr]

So most coverage I've seen about this is from right wing sources. What is the left side of the aisle saying about this? Is there any discussion about this over on our sister sites or anything? I'm not used to seeing a story this big fly by without the spin brigade chipping in.

To be honest, I wouldn't trust a word from Left-leaning sources: they still deny fraud of any scale occurred, despite there being proof. Conversely, the Right-leaning sources can also be a bit of an echo chamber, but they're amusingly less biased than those on the Left.

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

As @Zachowon said, the level of anti-Trump feeling among the GOP is quite powerful, as are the leaders of it. And statements like “RINOs need to be purged!” despite the alleged RINOs being far more consistently conservative in policy and outlook mean those same people, who have been leading the charge to move towards being a party who has consistent control of Congress and lawmaking ability, mean that they are going to fire right back at a man who prior to 2015 was a lifelong Democrat.

I dunno about that. The GOP base itself is still quite united around Trump based on polls for better, or worse. Hence the reason why the Republican memebers of the Senate is not going to let Trump be convicted in his trial. The old school GOP philosophy of Reaganism had its day. I feel like "Trumpism" or more accurately populism is here to stay. Though whether this is a good or bad thing is to be seen.

Though considering how Trump has expanded the GOP base among minorities in places like Texas and Florida shows how dead the old school GOP platform is. Without serious reform and revitalization, the GOP looks to be headed in a bad place. Mitch McConnel dumbly rejecting the $2000 stimulus basically cost the GOP the Georgia senate election. Its these "RINOS" that piss off a lot of the GOP base which drives them into the arms of people like Trump.

Plus as for "Conservative issues" when's the last time there has been a real Conservative? The GOP establishment politicians now are basically Democrats-lite as a lot of their policy positions are basically what the Democrats had 20-30 years ago. Each time the left pulls politics further in the leftward direction, the GOP leadership makes concessions instead of showing a spine. Trump won the nomination in the first place because the GOP base felt burned that the so called Conservatives pulled a "bait and switch" every time they secured their seats.

 

[Cherico]

I dunno about that. The GOP base itself is still quite united around Trump based on polls for better, or worse. Hence the reason why the Republican memebers of the Senate is not going to let Trump be convicted in his trial. The old school GOP philosophy of Reaganism had its day. I feel like "Trumpism" or more accurately populism is here to stay. Though whether this is a good or bad thing is to be seen.

Though considering how Trump has expanded the GOP base among minorities in places like Texas and Florida shows how dead the old school GOP platform is. Without serious reform and revitalization, the GOP looks to be headed in a bad place. Mitch McConnel dumbly rejecting the $2000 stimulus basically cost the GOP the Georgia senate election. Its these "RINOS" that piss off a lot of the GOP base which drives them into the arms of people like Trump.

Plus as for "Conservative issues" when's the last time there has been a real Conservative? The GOP establishment politicians now are basically Democrats-lite as a lot of their policy positions are basically what the Democrats had 20-30 years ago. Each time the left pulls politics further in the leftward direction, the GOP leadership makes concessions instead of showing a spine. Trump won the nomination in the first place because the GOP base felt burned that the so called Conservatives pulled a "bait and switch" every time they secured their seats.

A conservative party that conserves nothing is never long for the world.