Why do those who hate the GOP obsess over the GOP?

[renard_ruse]

I was subjected to two hours of involuntary listening to MSNBC yesterday (second hand exposure). Nearly the entire two hours the subject of discussion was some alleged "chaos" in the Republican Party and what the party needs to do about it.

This is from people who have open disrespect for the party and clearly hate it. In their absurd view, its a "fringe" party full of loonies and outright rotten people which is basically a joke and largely irrelevant and unelectable. Yet, they spent nearly the entire two hours doing nothing but discussing it, seemingly very concerned over this alleged "chaos" and worried that the "chaos" would "doom their chances" in 2016.

Now, doesn't anyone find it just a little odd that these people who have utter contempt and disgust for this alleged "fringe" party of "irrelevant lunatics" would care about it and want it to "solve its [alleged] problems," be offering suggestions, and even spend any time at all worrying about it or discussing it?

Of course, we get the same thing on this very board, and elsewhere on the internet. Republiphobia is a very strange phenomena indeed.

 

[renard_ruse]

I take that back that they spent the entire two hours, I forgot they also had a short segment attacking Bernie Sanders as "soft" on gun control and how this will "doom" his chances against Hillary.

No bias on MSNBC though.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Every Libbocrat is cursed with magical thinking that validates shit like white girls becoming black and boys becoming girls and Hillary impoverished after 8 long years in the White House.

 

[JackLuis]

Easy answer, "It's an election year."

The GOP is no longer the social conservative organization it was. The Grumpy Old Piss ants have taken over. The modern Repub's are more worried about their future speaking fees than running the country for the people's benefit.

Eisenhower was the last true Republican, after him the party drifted off into an increasing derp spiral. The RNC has lost all control of the party.

It is a pity we have sunk to such a degraded depth.

 

[midwestyankee]

To put it simply: we care about what's going on the Republican Party because the party already has a great deal of political power which they use in a very dangerous way. If they get more power, the danger they represent to the country is both real and present. We care about America so we care about who leads us.

How can this possibly be a surprise?

 

[IrezumiKiss]

To put it simply: we care about what's going on the Republican Party because the party already has a great deal of political power which they use in a very dangerous way. If they get more power, the danger they represent to the country is both real and present. We care about America so we care about who leads us.

How can this possibly be a surprise?

Renard's just feeling extra crispy conservative white guy today. All his usual anxieties are ternt up to nine and it's giving his ears cognitive dissonance on how general news functions in a modern society...it's no biggie.

Every 28 days he starts acting liberal for a week.

 

[JackLuis]

The GOP is in control of Congress, here's their contribution.

Month-Long Vacation Not Enough, So Congress Decrees August Now Has 7 Weeks

http://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Screen-Shot-2015-11-03-at-9.54.13-AM.png​

Courtesy of House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, here’s the 2016 schedule for representatives to show up to the office. The unmarked days are when our elected leaders are supposedly meeting with constituents. Or whining about how they aren’t paid enough, which apparently counts as “work.”

To paraphrase El JEB, " What are you, French?"

 

[sr71plt]

I was subjected to two hours of involuntary listening to MSNBC yesterday (second hand exposure). Nearly the entire two hours the subject of discussion was some alleged "chaos" in the Republican Party and what the party needs to do about it.

I'm having trouble seeing that you were subjected to MSNBC for two hours unwillingly to the point of listening to it if you weren't interested, second hand or otherwise.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I was subjected to two hours of involuntary listening to MSNBC yesterday (second hand exposure). Nearly the entire two hours the subject of discussion was some alleged "chaos" in the Republican Party and what the party needs to do about it.

This is from people who have open disrespect for the party and clearly hate it. In their absurd view, its a "fringe" party full of loonies and outright rotten people which is basically a joke and largely irrelevant and unelectable. Yet, they spent nearly the entire two hours doing nothing but discussing it, seemingly very concerned over this alleged "chaos" and worried that the "chaos" would "doom their chances" in 2016.

Now, doesn't anyone find it just a little odd that these people who have utter contempt and disgust for this alleged "fringe" party of "irrelevant lunatics" would care about it and want it to "solve its [alleged] problems," be offering suggestions, and even spend any time at all worrying about it or discussing it?

The answer is obvious: The GOP is in Congress, and the crazier it is, the harder it is for Dems or anyone else to deal with it. Consider the recent history of government shutdowns and budget crises, all entirely the fault of irresponsible Republican hardliners in Congress. It is in everyone's interest that the GOP should become less crazy.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I was subjected to two hours of involuntary listening to MSNBC yesterday (second hand exposure). Nearly the entire two hours the subject of discussion was some alleged "chaos" in the Republican Party and what the party needs to do about it.

This is from people who have open disrespect for the party and clearly hate it. In their absurd view, its a "fringe" party full of loonies and outright rotten people which is basically a joke and largely irrelevant and unelectable. Yet, they spent nearly the entire two hours doing nothing but discussing it, seemingly very concerned over this alleged "chaos" and worried that the "chaos" would "doom their chances" in 2016.

Now, doesn't anyone find it just a little odd that these people who have utter contempt and disgust for this alleged "fringe" party of "irrelevant lunatics" would care about it and want it to "solve its [alleged] problems," be offering suggestions, and even spend any time at all worrying about it or discussing it?

Of course, we get the same thing on this very board, and elsewhere on the internet. Republiphobia is a very strange phenomena indeed.

I wonder if they are aware this "fringe" party has majorities in both houses of Congress and will very likely win the presidency in 2016.

 

[KingOrfeo]

. . . and will very likely win the presidency in 2016.

There ain't a single Pub in the field that Clinton, Sanders or O'Malley would have to work to beat.

 

[Boxlicker101]

There ain't a single Pub in the field that Clinton, Sanders or O'Malley would have to work to beat.

Here is the latest Quinnipiac Poll, which shows most Republicans beating Hillary, who has a big lead over all other Dems.: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

 

[KingOrfeo]

Here is the latest Quinnipiac Poll, which shows most Republicans beating Hillary, who has a big lead over all other Dems.: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

No doubt a poll in November 2007 would have shown the same about Obama. It will change when the Dems have an actual nominee.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I wonder if they are aware this "fringe" party has majorities in both houses of Congress and will very likely win the presidency in 2016.

Quoting for posterity.

 

[sr71plt]

Yeah, I laughed out loud when I saw that too. But it was Box, so . . .

 

[Boxlicker101]

Yeah, I laughed out loud when I saw that too. But it was Box, so . . .

Quoting for posterity.

__________________


I take Paul Krugman about as seriously as I take Bozo the Clown.

 

[Boxlicker101]

No doubt a poll in November 2007 would have shown the same about Obama. It will change when the Dems have an actual nominee.

The GOP will have a candidate too and, unless it is Trump, the poll I linked shows that candidate beating either of the two Dem Leaders by a close margin. Certainly, too close to call at this early date. However, contrary to your post that I quoted before, the Dem candidate will not have an easy time of it.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The GOP will have a candidate too and, unless it is Trump, the poll I linked shows that candidate beating either of the two Dem Leaders by a close margin. Certainly, too close to call at this early date. However, contrary to your post that I quoted before, the Dem candidate will not have an easy time of it.

They never do, but, in this particular election, at least the Dem won't have an uphill fight -- and the Pub will. Look at how the Republican candidates have been embarrassing the country when they debate each other -- how do you think any of them is going to fare when he has to debate Clinton?

 

[The_Trouvere]

No doubt a poll in November 2007 would have shown the same about Obama. It will change when the Dems have an actual nominee.

I hope so. The problem is that the median income adjusted for inflation is lower than it was when Obama was inaugurated.

http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Household-Income-Distribution.php

That makes the electorate vulnerable to the black magic of voodoo economics.

After he was in office for two years Franklin Roosevelt convinced most Americans that the government could make a positive difference in their lives. After over six years Barack Obama has still not convinced most Americans of that.

The Democrats need to advance policies that raise the standard of living for middle class and working class whites. I do not care how they do it. That is what they need to do.

If the Democrats cannot win on economic issues, the Republicans will win on social issues.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

They never do, but, in this particular election, at least the Dem won't have an uphill fight -- and the Pub will. Look at how the Republican candidates have been embarrassing the country when they debate each other -- how do you think any of them is going to fare when he has to debate Clinton?

You don't understand people. People love hot dogs and cluster-fucks. Its why Dr. Carson cant win. He's the guy Ma now knows she shoulda married, rather than your drunken Pa. But Pa hadda big fat cock when he was 19. Its all a girl wants at that age.

 

[JackLuis]

You don't understand people. People love hot dogs and cluster-fucks. -

Well people are going to cum all over themselves with the cluster fuck of the election next year!

It hasn't even gotten weird yet, but Huck and Jindal are trying hard.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Well people are going to cum all over themselves with the cluster fuck of the election next year!

It hasn't even gotten weird yet, but Huck and Jindal are trying hard.

I doubt either of those guys will be factors in the 2016 general election.

 

[KingOrfeo]

You don't understand people. People love hot dogs and cluster-fucks. Its why Dr. Carson cant win. He's the guy Ma now knows she shoulda married, rather than your drunken Pa. But Pa hadda big fat cock when he was 19. Its all a girl wants at that age.

So who's Pa in this scenario -- Trump? You know he can't win next November.

 

[Boxlicker101]

So who's Pa in this scenario -- Trump? You know he can't win next November.

I believe the 2016 pres. election is one time when "None of the Above" would get a plurality of the vote. I really believe that should be an option.

 

[Sean Renaud]

From a realistic standpoint I can all but guarantee that isn't true. Mostly because the candidates are where they are because large swaths of Americans do like them. Hell Carson is here by popular demand fer fucks sake. It turns out being a black guy who insults the black President is a qualification in and of itself. (I'll admit to having no clue how he's gotten to his current position. Even with the madness that was 2012 that was partially because they knew they weren't winning and decided to have fun with it. This time they have pretty much even odds.)

From a what if scenario the fuck do we do then? Would the sitting president get a two year extension to the current maximum allowed (and in that case what happens in a repeat?) Would the VP get bumped up since the President "must" step down.