The state of the republican party

What dems do and reps used to do is accept the results of a legitimate election. Our form of government cannot last if the big lie is allowed to foment and encouraged by all of the traitorous trump stooges - hawley, cruz, jordan, mccarthy, et al. Joe Biden is old but he is honest. Under the circumstances he inherited in this crazy world we live in I think he is doing a tremendous job. I have grown to like old and boring. Much more than loud mouth and lying with an insatiable ego such as we had with trump. I thank God every day that trump is no longer president. Unfortunately he left a wide swath of damage and repercussions behind that will take decades to overcome.

 

Thanks for the response. It's okay to have different opinions. Thats why I visit these forums. Please don't think any less of me because I am on the other side of the aisle.

 

again to are certainly entitled to your opinion I just happen to disagree. Biden has done nothing in his first 100 days that makes us better off than we were with Trump.

 

Biden was legitimately elected can we agree on that? Can we also agree that cruz, hawley, etal know Biden was legitimately elected but are using this as a grift and a power grab to take the republican party away from its more rational rep voters?

In regards to Biden versus trump no comparison. One is a demagogue and narcissist. The other is a lifetime public servant and knows how to put the needs of others ahead of himself. If you think Biden has not done anything in his first 100 days you are either not watching the news or getting your news from fox, oan, or newsmax.

 

Yes Biden was legitimately elected, no dispute there. Im going to hold my tongue on the other comment.

 

I don't care who you vote for. I just don't understand supporting someone like Trump. I really don't. I just personally can't stand narcissists, cheaters, Grifters, bullies, liars, and cons. He is everything I despise in a human.

 

Not necessarily. My understanding is that the DOJ can have the courts act as an arbiter in a situation like this where a state is violating election laws that were set, or violating overlying federal election laws. And yes... I would bet everything I owe that in this process, one of these jackasses will be breaking some sort of election law.

So more than likely I think you'll see someone at DOJ bring a lawsuit here very soon. There also are going to be numerous outside watchdog groups bringing suites if they haven't already, and the courts will have a role in determining if the state of Arizona is breaking any laws in this audit.

Important to note that it's surely a law to falsify information, or change someone's vote, or even illegally throw out votes (even though they often get away with that prior to the election if they legally purge voter roles). It's not against the law to do an audit, and release some sort of report, but even in releasing a report with allegations, laws could be broken even in that process. If the state of AZ tries to retroactively take action, that could be where laws are broken.

Given the cast of characters leading this effort, I would be willing to bet that in the process of doing what they are doing... they are going to break some laws. That's a given. The only issue will be how quickly the courts can move on these lawsuits before NARRATIVE takes hold (that Trump actually won), and chaos in our electoral system ensues.

 

At some point in the future, regressives will understand that freedom of speech is a concept much broader than that covered by the First Amendment.

 

Look at the deep thinker, how pensive! Is this where I make some sort of witty bon mot based on Rand or libertarianism?

 

[
.

Companies should be allowed to provide an environment on their soc

If anyone chooses to make a social media site safer for everyone that is their choice. The government has no business telling any private company that they must allow people to be bullied, put in harm's way, or viciously attacked by any sick jerk who wants to. If guys like Trump want to have their own social media site where they can be as radical and sick as they want, then they can do it there. It's that simple.

 

I agree with all of that. It doesn't change the fact that when someone is talking about freedom of speech, slapping back at them with the limitations of the first amendment just shows what a limited view of free speech that person has. Twitter (or Facebook or whoever) is a private enterprise, and if they think revenue will be higher with more restrictions on speech, they are within their rights, and perhaps even bound by their fiduciary duties to their stockholders, to censor whatever they choose. A reverence for the concept of free speech would call for a total lack of censorship, so another platform that is not publicly traded my elect to go that route, and that would be good. Obviously Representative Stefanik is wrong, legally speaking, about the censorship by twitter being unconstitutional overreach though.

Nope, it is where you say, "I agree SM, free speech is a broad concept that we would do well to encourage beyond the mere legal protections of the first amendment. Anything should be allowed to compete in the marketplace of ideas." A witty bon mot would also be fine, though bon mots are witty by definition, so the adjective is redundant.

 

if You acknowledge that Biden was legitimately elected, then you are a hypocrite if you fail to condemn Trump and the host of liars on the Republican side who continue to perpetuate and profit from the lie that the election was stolen.

saying you’ll hold your tongue is a weak ass cop out. Either you stand for truth or not.