Are you implying that being concern about violence is a bad thing?... Anyhow. Let's talk about the data set. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like their method and data set are made public. But based on what they provide publicly, I give this "poll" an F (it's probably not wrong, but the way they did it... smh) The questioning from Echelon Insights, run by Republican strategists, is funny. To Trump Republican, "how concern are you..." about socialism, antifa violence, china, liberal bias in mainstream media". But nothing on domestic terrorism. To Dem, "how concern are you..." about Trump's supporters and the above. But nothing on antifa violence. Why not just list the same set of possible concerns to both groups? It is as if they intentionally ask from a presumptuous and biased position or to obtain the desired outcome. More data from them: Among Trump Republicans, the number 1 characteristic of candidate in future Republican primary is.... "won't back down in a fight with Democrats" (70%). Among non-Trump Republicans, it's 35%. You take that data + the fact that Trump supporters just tried to end democracy on 1/6 with violence .... yea, that group should be a top concern for any normal folks.
just judging from the Clutchfans D&D, the eye test confirms the claim made in the tweet that the biggest concern of Democrats is "Donald Trump's supporters"
It's kinda sad that the revolving door and campaign finance isn't even on the list. Solving those issues would solve a lot of the other issues.
I agree with the poll. I've made the argument that Trumpism is fundamentally different from things like the TEA Party in that it is cult of personality. That most Republicans themselves now define who is a Republican based on support of Trump is far different than what we've previously seen in this country. That people are willing to storm the US Capitol based on the false belief that the election was stolen from Trump (note not something like gun control, abortion, immigration or any other of the deep and longstanding beliefs of modern Conservatives) shows how dangerous this movement is. This isn't an ideological movement anymore but one focused on belief in an individual. That is something that was one of the biggest fears of the Founders that our republican democracy would be undermined by a demagogue with intentions of tyranny.
L M F A O at Republicans being concerned about the general moral decline of the country and yet they fellated Donald Trump at every turn.
Yeah, I don't understand how someone could not be concerned; it's not media hype. The shift in the GOP to supporting a single individual versus ideas or platforms and in some cases at the expense of our constitutional republic's rules and laws... that will be the central historical political topic of our era. It's a shift to a dramatically different America. Oh well. I'm not going to make myself sick worrying about it anymore. I'll do what I can do, which is not that much in the scheme of things. I am interested (and scared) to see who the Party of Trump mainly targets moving forward: political enemies (meaning all people who do not worship Trump), intellectuals, non-white people, immigrants, LGBTQ, or -- why not -- all of the above? What Asians and Jews now experience in this country is probably the tip of an ugly iceberg, if it mirrors other similar chapters of human history. I need to start posting with dumber words if I want to survive. *removes glasses. grows Don Jr. style beard, quits contributing money to CF, burns academic credentials * Man, I don't know. I just don't follow politicks anymore, y'all. LOL. Y'all are all okay in my book, except those really dangerous liberals. Why r they so deranged by Trump tho? LOL. Triggered, hahaha.
Perhaps it's a bit easier that it's not just any individual, but a psychopath. How often does a psychopath rises up to be leader of a party? Spoiler actually, history said quit often
STATE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY UPDATE: SORE LOSERS DEMAND SENATE PARLIAMENTARIAN BE CANCELLED Flipping The Byrd: Democrats Demand The Firing Of The Senate Parliamentarian After The Minimum Wage Hike Is Deemed Out of Order Democratic members this week attacked Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough after she (correctly) ruled that the inclusion of the $15 minimum wage hike in a reconciliation bill violated Senate rules. The response from Democratic members and many in the blogosphere was withering. Rep. Ilhan Omar called for MacDonough to be fired and others denounced her actions and called the Senate to simply overrule her — and the long-standing rules. It is not just the effort to gut or flip the “Byrd Rule” but vicious attacks on this parliamentarian that are so disconcerting. The use of a reconciliation bill was an effort to circumvent the filibuster and allow a majority vote on the hike. However, by using reconciliation, the Democrats triggered the ‘Byrd rule’ – which limits the type of provisions in the reconciliation process to taxing and spending. The purpose is to limit an add-ons through reconciliation to measures designed to have a direct impact on the federal budget—barring the use of reconciliation to introduce “extraneous” measures. Otherwise, reconciliations could circumvent the normal legislative process and the filibuster option for the minority. The rule allows a senator to object when a reconciliation bill is brought to the floor through a Point of Order on the bill. After the Byrd Rule is raised, the Senate Parliamentarian informs the Presiding Officer on how to rule and the Presiding office conveys that to the Senate. Senators can then vote to overrule the Presiding Officer but the process protects the minority and the parliamentarian by requiring that a vote to overrule secure a three-fifths majority. The Parliamentarian’s role is key to a system of orderly legislative process. To simply disregard such rules (and fire those who seek to maintain them) is yet another example of the rage that has replaced reason in our current politics. Byrd was famous for putting the interests of the Senate and the Constitution before his own party. This effort shows increasingly rare such institutional defenders have become in this age of rage. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was one of the first to balk at any rules standing in the way of reform: “I think the parliamentarian is verging on, you know, just really intruding in this legislative process in a very concerning way.” I am not really sure what that actually means. Parliamentary rules are the thing that defines the legislative process and guarantees a neutral and ordered process of deliberation and enactment. Yet, she was joined by others who dismissed the notion that such rules should matter. Rep. Ro Khanna declared “I’m sorry – an unelected parliamentarian does not get to deprive 32 million Americans the raise they deserve.” Rep. Pramila Jayapal declared “Twenty-seven million Americans are not going to be much convinced when we go back in two years and say, ‘Sorry, the unelected parliamentarian told us we couldn’t raise the minimum wage.’” more at the link
Heck yeah, I guess they should have invited a mob to storm the parliamentarian and beat him (her, d’oh!) with a flagpole. I mean the bar has definitely been raised for sore losing, I tell you what.
