What is the future of the Republican Party?

DevoHusker said:
What's sad is you being disingenuous to score some unseen point. Please share with me where that says what the headline says it does.  
Click to expand...


Dude. Read what he wrote, and the context in which he wrote it. It's plain to see.

That he didn't name a dude BY NAME who had killed 168 people shouldn't be a surprise.

 
DevoHusker said:
so...he didn't say it. Got it. 
Click to expand...


Do you think a newspaper would have published overt praise of Timothy McVeigh in 1995 after he killed 168 people?

A sober read of that article, defending militants in the wake of that bombing... I just don't know how a rational person looks at that and says that's not tacit support.

I mean, you're on record as giving Hawley a pass for this so... great? 

 
knapplc said:
Do you think a newspaper would have published overt praise of Timothy McVeigh in 1995 after he killed 168 people?

A sober read of that article, defending militants in the wake of that bombing... I just don't know how a rational person looks at that and says that's not tacit support.

I mean, you're on record as giving Hawley a pass for this so... great? 
Click to expand...


I read it more as in he was try to differentiate between the heinous act of McVeigh, by pointing out that others affiliated would never do something like that.

"Many of the people populating these movements are not radical, right-wing, pro-assault weapons freaks as they were originally stereotyped"

"Feeling alienated from their government and the rest of society, they often become disenchanted and slip into talks of 'conspiracy theories' about how the federal government is out to get them"

That certainly does not look like it condones McVeigh's actions, or justify the 168 deaths. 

And, I am not on record either way so...what?

 
Archy1221 said:
Imagine Rex not knowing how Committee assignments are handled.  Nevermind, it’s not hard to imagine Rex not knowing something.  
Click to expand...
We all know that the House has the power to remove any member from any committee. Pretending that's not how things work isn't making the argument you think it's making.

 
DevoHusker said:
I read it more as in he was try to differentiate between the heinous act of McVeigh, by pointing out that others affiliated would never do something like that.

"Many of the people populating these movements are not radical, right-wing, pro-assault weapons freaks as they were originally stereotyped"

"Feeling alienated from their government and the rest of society, they often become disenchanted and slip into talks of 'conspiracy theories' about how the federal government is out to get them"

That certainly does not look like it condones McVeigh's actions, or justify the 168 deaths. 

And, I am not on record either way so...what?
Click to expand...


Literally wrote that in the wake of McVeigh's bombing. What do you think he was writing about? Why that message, then?

He just happened to be speaking favorably about militias just after a militia guy killed 168 people?

C'mon, man.

 
funhusker said:
Exhibit A: Ben Sasse

He voted with Trump like 98% percent of the time...
Click to expand...


Sasse is one of the most conservative Senators when it comes to voting record. He didn't necessarily vote "with Trump" but rather "for conservative positions."

And yet, because he voted to convict in the latest impeachment, the NE GOP is calling for his censure. I was thrilled he did so, even knowing the sh*tshow that would fall on him because of that vote. 

The most vocal/visible Rs are in the Trump Cult for sure. But there are millions of non vocal/visible conservatives that back Sasse (and Romney etc)

 
Back
Top