What Republicans Are For:

[joepistole]

There is so much going on in American politics, I think it useful if we keep track of what the Republican Party is for. We keep going from one bizarre position to another and things get lost and forgotten. So below is a list of things the Republican Party is for based on the statements and actions taken by the Republican Party's presidential nominee:

As stated by the Republican presidential nominee:

Republicans are for:

1) Bringing back and expanding upon Bush's torture chambers
2) Bending to Putin's aspirations of global dominance
3) Creating a forced deportation police force
4) Forcibly deporting 11-12 million illegal aliens
5) Increasing the debt by 12 to 15 trillion dollars (estimated costs of Republican programs and that probably understates Trump's debt because of changes in payroll trust funding)
6) Weakening NATO
7) Tactical use of nuclear weapons
8 ) Increased use of domestic surveillance
9) Increased global uncertainty
10) Religious discrimination
11) The illegal hacking of American computers by Russian hackers
12) Illicit Russian involvement in American elections
13) The illegal plundering other nations
14) Replacing senior military officers with political appointees rather than the current merit based system.

* I fully expect this grow in the coming weeks. With all the Republican obfuscation, I think it's imperative we remember what Republicans are for. So this is an attempt to do that.

At least 2 of the above would violate international laws, and make the US a pariah state.

I think Ronald Reagan, Eisenhower, and many other former Republicans are rolling over in their graves now.

 

[Russ_Watters]

So below is a list of things the Republican Party is for...

Subtle difference from the title; while it is fair to say - at least during the 6 months of a presidential campaign - that the candidate speaks for the party, it does not equate to the party speaking for all its members.

Republicans are for:

1) Bringing back and expanding upon Bush's torture chambers

While I realize you're just trolling, adding a liberal (get it?!) amount of your own twisted interpretation, I still find it funny when guys talk that way. Now if you'll excuse me, I shall retire forthwith to my bedchamber!

 

[joepistole]

Subtle difference from the title; while it is fair to say - at least during the 6 months of a presidential campaign - that the candidate speaks for the party, it does not equate to the party speaking for all its members.

Yes it is fair to say. That candidate does speak for the party. Trump does speak for the Republican Party. That candidate was elected by party members as the party's candidate for the highest and most powerful office in the country. The party leadership has endorsed him.

While I realize you're just trolling, adding a liberal (get it?!) amount of your own twisted interpretation, I still find it funny when guys talk that way. Now if you'll excuse me, I shall retire forthwith to my bedchamber!

LOL....do you now? Is that what you realize? Writing the truth isn't trolling. It's just writing the truth. Those are the very easily validated positions of the Republican Party's leader. He does speak for the Republican Party. He was elected by members of the Republican Party to represent them in this election contest. Are you telling me Republicans didn't know who they were voting for when they elected The Donald? The Donald still ranks well with the Republican base as reflected in polling. Are you telling me Republicans even now don't know who they are voting for and his stated positions? The reason The Donald is so popular with the Republican base is because Republicans do know his positions on these issues.

Those Republicans who do know what Trump advocates and may not concur with those positions and who not speak out are complicit.

Just because you don’t like the truth, it doesn’t make the truth twisted or liberal. It just makes it the truth. Trump is and has been very explicit. His intent is clear. Trump and his Republicans have for several months now argued for the restoration and expansion of Baby Bushes torture programs.


Actually, I think the twisted interpretation award goes to Republicans. Republicans have argued for more than a decade now that tying someone down to a board and repeatedly nearly drowning them isn’t torture but “enhanced interrogation”. I think most people would call that practice torture and not “enhanced interrogation”.


Trump, Feb. 17:Torture works. OK, folks? You know, I have these guys—”Torture doesn’t work!”—believe me, it works. And waterboarding is your minor form. Some people say it’s not actually torture. Let’s assume it is. But they asked me the question: What do you think of waterboarding? Absolutely fine. But we should go much stronger than waterboarding. – Donald Trump


https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...9277be-d59c-11e5-b195-2e29a4e13425_story.html

While you and your so called “conservative” fellows might find the truth odd or twisted or “liberal”, it’s the truth nonetheless.

 

[Tiassa]

As stated by the Republican presidential nominee:

Republicans are for:

1) Bringing back and expanding upon Bush's torture chambers
2) Bending to Putin's aspirations of global dominance
3) Creating a forced deportation police force
4) Forcibly deporting 11-12 million illegal aliens
5) Increasing the debt by 12 to 15 trillion dollars (estimated costs of Republican programs and that probably understates Trump's debt because of changes in payroll trust funding)
6) Weakening NATO
7) Tactical use of nuclear weapons
8 ) Increased use of domestic surveillance
9) Increased global uncertainty
10) Religious discrimination
11) The illegal hacking of American computers by Russian hackers
12) Illicit Russian involvement in American elections
13) The illegal plundering other nations
14) Replacing senior military officers with political appointees rather than the current merit based system.

It's kind of strange for me to think back to the days of ferocious respect. We were supposed to respect the opposition. I mean, think of Richard Luger of Indiana, bounced by his own party in 2012, or the late Bob Bennett of Utah. Look, I never liked these guys. At the end of the day, they were part of what would make Americans like me―infidel and aspiring artist―illegal. And it's true, over the years the Republican Party distilled in such a manner as to muck up all those old lines; unfortunately none of it was for the good.

But those woman-hating, book-burning, brink-dancing, racist, corruption-protecting, greed-celebrating Republicans, as much as I could not call them friends, were still my fellow Americans, and my fellow human beings.

And Republicans still are. The difference 'twixt then and now is that there were some days when conservatives would actually reciprocate the acknowledgment.

One of the more breathtakingly annoying projections we might offer is the litany of delegitimization against President Clinton. Republicans are, technically, already preparing to lay siege:

"It is hard to believe that Hillary Clinton would have a mandate should she win the election, because the referendum seems to be on whether Donald Trump is fit to be president, not whether Clinton is the right choice," said longtime Republican strategist Ron Bonjean.

(Stanage↱)​

Recalling the absurdity of the racist backlash against President Obama's legitimacy, we might wonder how ridiculous the GOP will get in response to the first female president. Nonetheless, somewhere in all that noise and fury we will most likely hear the argument that President Clinton isn't legitimate because conservatives were denied a voice in the election.

A lot of the Republicans you once considered colleagues in vote probably weren't people I would have shown much appreciation toward, but, you know, like that macho honor among thieves, or 'twixt warriors about to fight each other to the death, we were supposed to at least respect the mere fact of opposition.

I mean, how the fuck is Lindsey Graham one of my least-loathed Republican neighbors, right now?

Then again, how are John Kasich ("abortibudget") or Marco Rubio (whose faith governs how he personally uses IUDs ... I shite thee not) moderates?

Seriously, when Dick Lugar is too liberal for conservatives? Bob Bennett?

Did you hear the bit about Huelskamp and the House Freedom Caucus?

Another member, who downplayed the seriousness of Freedom Caucus coup discussions, nevertheless acknowledged that many conservatives were "extremely concerned" by the successful effort to defeat Huelskamp.

"If it's addressed satisfactorily," the member said, "it'll calm any concerns. But it hasn't been addressed since the Huelskamp loss."

In fairness to Ryan, Congress has been on break since mid-July. And even if the House had been in session, it's unclear what Ryan could have done. Telling outside groups not to oppose a member could be seen as illegal coordination with a PAC.

Conservatives, nevertheless, are looking for payback.

"How can you have a gang, and have one in your gang get stabbed, and do nothing?" another member asked. "You got to stab somebody, or else what's the point of having a gang?"

(Fuller↱)​

This is one of the times when it is easy to wish we might wring specifics out of reporters; Matt Fuller is no slouch, though, and in the days since that article emerged we haven't heard any denials or retorts from the HFC. At least ... er ... ah ... no, actually, I'm not seeing any in one last perusal.

It is something of an unfortunate outcome; even the racists and other hatemongers of the day seemed just a bit less uncivilized.

But, yeah. Imagine me fondly recalling Republicans of thirty years ago.

Seriously, though. Think back to the beginning of Dick Lugar's career. I mean, come on, given the Southern Strategy, it's hard to imagine how I ever would have liked the GOP during my lifetime, but still, what the hell has happened to the Republican Party?
____________________

Notes:

Fuller, Matt. "House Conservatives Plot Coup Against Speaker Paul Ryan". The Huffington Post. 30 August 2016. HuffingtonPost.com. 10 September 2016. http://huff.to/2cw8riq

Stanage, Niall. "Why Clinton needs to win big". The Hill. 4 September 2016. TheHill.com. 10 September 2016. http://bit.ly/2c3Moig