GOP Failure Watch Part VI (Majority in House Edition) The Insurrection Caucus Sh*tshow.

Want to rephrase?

Do you mean a bunch of GOP reps want to be in the minority, or at least not have the Presidency, so they don't have to pretend to legislate and can just focus on the grift?

 

Well yes, but that's what the voters want. Compromise and you are a RINO. Pass legislation and you are part of the swamp. They are sending performance artists to the legislature on purpose.

 

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/...f-corrupt-attempt-to-block-his-investigations

Iowa passes a law that allows state agencies under audit to not share docs with the state auditor. The state auditor is the only Dem in the council of state.

 

Kari Lake’s campaign manager posted a meme about stoning gay people to death. pic.twitter.com/h7F6dxOaAj

— PatriotTakes 🇺🇸 (@patriottakes) June 6, 2023

 

Hey it kills 2 birds with one stone.

It offends the gays and the middle eastern.

 

But @superdave assures me they won't take it that far and I'm delusional for thinking they would!

 

Have they? Can you link to a ritual execution of a hat person by stoning?

The fact that you cite a meme just proves I’m right and you’re wrong.

 

Hate crimes are on the rise, but that’s not something straight white Christian men are going to feel acutely. So stop being so dramatic. Don’t worry be happy was a number one jam…

 

And my argument has always been that it doesn't make sense to separate desires from capabilities. How much time do we spend worrying about North Korea successfully launching a nuclear attack on the US?

Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler

none

We're in a world of instant world wide communication, and further, in the US specifically we live in the world of the money blurt, a term we were posting when Ted Cruz hit the scene. (At the time, his tactic of saying incendiary, transgressive things in order to boost his online profile and fund raising was kind of unique. Now it's the median GOP legislator.) Finding this or that extreme statement online and not evaluating it is catastrophizing, i.e., playing into the hands of reactionaries. What's the value in self-demotivating???

I see your posts. Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.

 

Where will they stop? At what point will they decide enough is enough? Book bans? Drag bans? Taking away marriage? Making us illegal? Killing us?

Did you see the law Uganda passed last week? Where will American Christians be content enough to stop? Leviticus 20:13?

I've asked numerous times and you never reply, apparently because it's too "theologically complicated" for you.

 

So far they can't seem to break the dank memes barrier.

Yes, I know about the behind the scenes deal there. But, I mean, isn't it kind of racist to deny Ugandans any agency in this? Kenya is very similar in many ways, but they ain't doing that shit there.

 

Reminds me of this.


Ted Cruz had an argument with some preacher on twitter where Cruz was defending gays, in terms of the law in Uganda. so even the line is different with in the republican camp

Even in countries that have very tough anti gay laws, some gays still go there.

https://news.yahoo.com/being-gay-illegal-many-countries-122911000.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

 

I think you misunderstand. I give Ugandans full agency in it.

But I ask you again, where will American Christians be content enough to stop? You cowardly never answer. Pick the one you think they will decide that is far enough:

Book bans?
Drag bans?
Taking away marriage?
Making us illegal?
Killing us?

It's not a difficult question.

 

And the line on abortion is different within the Republican camp, but that's not what I was asking.

Where will they actually be content enough to stop?

 

Many reps will have different lines.

Ted Cruz line is probably no marriage. the dude he argued against will say stoning to dead.

The line they draw will depend on how many of each side they have in congress.

If Republicans win the Senate, the Presidency and keep the house, they will role back some protections, they will censor some books. But they will not put people in prison (not until the SC court strikes down Lawrence vs Texas), some wing nut states may put for criminalization or to put limits on recognizing marriage.

 

Dave: CHRISTIANS ARE PERSECUTED!!!! I CAN'T TAKE A JOKE ABOUT CHRISTIANS!

Also Dave: I know of no persecution against LGBTQ+ people. Nothing at all.

 

The Matthew Shepard case occurred in 1998, Lawrence vs Texas was 2003.

So crime vs gays would still be a crime, maybe hate crime regulation would be water down, but it would still be a crime.