War End the GOP - Nigerian Bougie argues In order to save our democracy, we must not merely defeat the Republican Party.



There are two figures in the Republican Party who best represent the state of the GOP in the Trump era. The first, of course, is Donald Trump. The second is Roy Moore. By the time Moore defeated Jeff Sessions’s replacement, Luther Strange, in the Republican primary for Alabama’s special election in 2017, he had already been a minor celebrity on the right-wing fringe for nearly 20 years. He had been removed from the Alabama Supreme Court twice for refusing to comply with federal rulings. He regularly made statements disparaging Islam and homosexuality. He had been a proponent of the theory that Barack Obama had not been born in the United States and had led an organization that celebrated pro-Confederate holidays. True to form, Moore would go on to make comments suggesting an ambivalence about American slavery during his campaign—America was last great, he had said in response to a question at a rally that September, “when families were united—even though we had slavery, they cared for one another.”

In the months leading up to the election, the Republican National Committee seemed entirely willing to swallow that record and more to keep Sessions’s seat in the party’s hands. But that November, The Washington Post went public with startling allegations. Moore, a fervent public tribune of conservative family values, was credibly accused of sexually abusing a 14-year-old girl and pursuing several other teenagers. This, obviously, was a bridge too far for the party. Quickly, the RNC pulled its money and field support from the campaign. “The allegations were obviously very concerning, and concerning to the degree that we pulled our resources,” committee chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel explained to conservative talk show host John Catsimatidis. “The Alabama voters are going to have to be the judge and jury on this.” Her uncle, former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, was among the voices urging the party to abandon Moore. “Roy Moore in the U.S. Senate would be a stain on the GOP and on the nation,” he tweeted. “No vote, no majority is worth losing our honor, our integrity.” At a press conference earlier in the month, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called on Moore to step aside. “He’s obviously not fit to be in the United States Senate,” McConnell told reporters, “and we’ve looked at all the options to try to prevent that from happening.” By early December, Moore had few open supporters within the party infrastructure beyond the Alabama Republican Party, which had secured Moore’s place on the election ballot.

But it had also become clear by then that Moore, who had dismissed all calls to drop out, retained plenty of supporters within Alabama’s Republican electorate—voters who defiantly disbelieved The Washington Post’s reporting and were loyal enough that polls continued to show Moore in a dead heat or even ahead of Democratic challenger Doug Jones. In an interview just over a week before the election, McConnell declined to condemn Moore again. “I’m going to let the people of Alabama make the call,” he told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. President Trump, less reticent, officially endorsed Moore by tweet the next day. “Democrats refusal to give even one vote for massive Tax Cuts,” he wrote, “is why we need Republican Roy Moore to win in Alabama.” In a statement afterward, the Moore campaign boasted that Trump had personally called to offer “enthusiastic support for Judge Moore’s candidacy.”

The inevitable followed. On December 4, 2017, the Republican National Committee endorsed a credibly accused child molester for U.S. Senate. Having decided his victory would be preferable to allowing a Democrat a partial and ultimately inconsequential term, the RNC resumed its financial support for the Moore campaign. In a column for USA Today, the conservative writer Jonah Goldberg stated the obvious. “The RNC pulled its support when they thought Moore could be forced from the race,” he wrote. “They renewed it when it was clear he lacked the decency to drop out. In other words, their real problem was with a potential loser, not a possible child molester.” In defense of its decision, the RNC issued a brief statement to the press: “The RNC is the political arm of the president and we support the President.”

The Moore saga feels as though it was an eternity ago, but the episode has taken on a new resonance in the wake of Trump’s impeachment. Over the past several months, leading Democrats in Congress, the Democratic presidential candidates, and pundits across the mainstream press have denounced the Republican Party’s defenses of the president, attacks on the credibility of impeachment witnesses, and attempts to undermine the impeachment process. In a representative op-ed for USA Today in December, California Democratic Representative Eric Swalwell, who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, admonished Republicans and urged responsible figures in the party to “stand up and be counted.” “Are they OK with this president’s undebatable abuse of power?” he asked. “Are they prepared for what America becomes if we accept it? Is this the conduct we want to be commonplace in our children’s America?”

A similarly beseeching New York Times column from the Ethics and Public Policy Center’s Peter Wehner in September was titled, simply, “What’s the Matter With Republicans?” “Mr. Trump’s most recent abuse of power—pressuring the Ukrainian president to do his dirty work—is the latest link in a long chain of corruption,” he wrote. “If Republicans don’t break with the president now, after all he has done and all he is likely to do, they will pay a fearsome price generationally, demographically and, above all, morally.” Vox’s Ezra Klein, one of the loudest voices condemning Republicans’ unwillingness to hold Trump accountable, tweeted in November that the impeachment process had exposed much more than Trump’s willingness to abuse power. “I’m a broken record on this, but the impeachment process isn’t revealing what Trump did,” he wrote. “We already knew that. It’s revealing what the Republican Party will accept, and even defend.”

In truth, we knew that, too. As the RNC straightforwardly informed us during the Moore scandal, the Republican Party is the political arm of the president. Defending Trump’s effort to enlist a foreign power in the harassment of a political opponent has been an utterly trivial undertaking for a party not only willing to send an abuser of children to high office on Trump’s behalf, but also willing to sidestep and deny numerous allegations of abuse and rape against Trump himself.

The capacity of our political elites to be shocked anew by the Republican Party has been more shocking than anything Republicans have stooped to doing in the Trump era. It should be no surprise that a party willing to deny the reality of a climate crisis that imperils all civilization has given the presidency to a man who denied his black predecessor is an American. It is entirely logical that a party currently dismantling the right to vote has turned itself over to a man willing to undermine faith in the democratic process. Despite what the Democratic Party’s chosen rationale for impeachment has implied, the gravest offenses President Trump has committed against our country can be found not in the White House’s call logs but in the detention centers where the president has caged the children of migrant parents—children abused and traumatized in the service of a racist mythology Trump has crafted about the impact of immigration. The Republican Party has helped him promulgate it and stands ready to help him do worse, because Donald Trump, beyond holding office as a Republican president, embodies the very soul of the Republican Party.

Every single aspect of his administration has been foreshadowed not only by fringe figures within the GOP and voices in the conservative media, but also by the last Republican president—a man now embraced, sometimes literally, by liberal and moderate conservative figures decrying Trump’s conduct. Trump’s own rhetoric of division and exclusion was preceded by the 2004 reelection campaign for George W. Bush, which took advantage of homophobia to boost turnout from social conservatives. Before thousands of Puerto Ricans devastated by Hurricane Maria were forced by the Trump administration’s shoddy recovery effort to ask themselves whether they were really Americans after all, thousands of African Americans failed by the Bush administration’s relief efforts after Hurricane Katrina posed the same question to themselves. Trump’s intimations that the federal executive is above the law may well have been bolstered by the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance of the American people. Even Trump’s efforts to integrate his companies within the processes of the state were preceded by the Bush administration’s curious keenness for contracts with Halliburton, the company Vice President Dick Cheney ran before Bush took office.

The propaganda and misinformation campaigns that characterize what some have called a new post-truth era under Trump should, in fact, be quite familiar to those who remember the denialism that characterized defenses of the Iraq War and the hundreds of thousands of casualties it produced. The two Republicans who have occupied the White House in the first two decades of the new millennium have shared not only an address, but an enthusiasm for torture and war crimes, a zeal for using fear and the threat of terrorism to quash political dissent, and near-total support from the Republican political establishment.

In the years since the end of the Bush era, we have seen figures within the Republican Party denigrate African Americans, Hispanics, Muslims, and gender and sexual minorities. We have seen the Republican Party repeatedly back cuts to critical social programs under the pretense of fiscal discipline only to pass giveaways to major corporations, the wealthy, and an already gluttonous military. The character of the GOP is not an open question. Even those who suggest otherwise know it—the American political establishment meets each fresh stain the GOP leaves on the American conscience not with genuine surprise, but with performances of disbelief. Impotent in the face of a party that defied all political convention and wisdom with its victory in the last election, and unwilling to reshape a political order that offers them sinecures, political elites have only indignation and repetition as recourse. Their pearls, too often clutched, have been crushed into a fine powder. The straw has flattened the camel.

It’s left to the rest of us to face the truth squarely: Donald Trump is not a departure from the values defining the Republican Party, but the culmination of its efforts to secure power in this country. The question before us is not how much more the Republican Party might be willing to tolerate from the president but how much more we are willing to tolerate from the Republican Party. The GOP, founded by a generation of extraordinary men more committed to human freedom and the ideals expressed by our founding documents than the Founders themselves, has had a strange and improbable history. Built in opposition to the institution of slavery, the Republican Party is now a reliable opponent of equality and a malignant force in American life—a cancer within a patient in denial about the nature and severity of her condition. It should be not only defeated but destroyed—vanquished from the American political scene with a finality that can only be assured not by electoral politics or structural reforms alone, but by a moral crusade.

This might seem a startling supposition to liberal strategists and commentators convinced the Republican Party is digging its own grave. Despite Trump’s victory in the 2016 election, numerous pieces a year are written predicting that the GOP, dependent as it is on old and white voters, is headed for an inexorable decline, given the demographic changes set to reshape the country in the coming decades. “The numbers simply do not lie,” Axios’s Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen wrote last summer. “America, as a whole, and swing states, in particular, are growing more diverse, more quickly. There is no way Republicans can change birth rates or curb this trend—and there’s not a single demographic megatrend that favors Republicans.”
 
Let's just be real, they don't stand for anything anymore other than annihilating America as we know it.
Yes, which is why the only thing wrong about this article isn't the inherent thought process of "politics isn't a dialogue, but a war, and the goal is to crush the Enemy utterly": it's that its targeting US instead of THEM. Destroy the Enemy, dehumanize yourself and embrace violence, etc.
Do you really think the average Democrat voter sits down and thinks "gee, I sure do like destroying civilization and castrating children, let me masturbate to footage of whites being tortured?"
 
Before thousands of Puerto Ricans devastated by Hurricane Maria were forced by the Trump administration’s shoddy recovery effort to ask themselves whether they were really Americans after all, thousands of African Americans failed by the Bush administration’s relief efforts after Hurricane Katrina posed the same question to themselves.
Guess they might have missed the part where supplies were actually sent to PR but were kept locked in warehouses by the corrupt local officials, or that the mayor of New Orleans at the time who blamed the federal government's lack of response was also a corrupt scoundrel now serving time in federal prison?
 
Yes, which is why the only thing wrong about this article isn't the inherent thought process of "politics isn't a dialogue, but a war, and the goal is to crush the Enemy utterly": it's that its targeting US instead of THEM. Destroy the Enemy, dehumanize yourself and embrace violence, etc.
Do you really think the average Democrat voter sits down and thinks "gee, I sure do like destroying civilization and castrating children, let me masturbate to footage of whites being tortured?"

There's only been one party that's shit on me for the last four years for being a centrist that didn't vote for either of the major candidates last time.
 
Yes, which is why the only thing wrong about this article isn't the inherent thought process of "politics isn't a dialogue, but a war, and the goal is to crush the Enemy utterly": it's that its targeting US instead of THEM. Destroy the Enemy, dehumanize yourself and embrace violence, etc.
Do you really think the average Democrat voter sits down and thinks "gee, I sure do like destroying civilization and castrating children, let me masturbate to footage of whites being tortured?"
Obviously not. The real issue is that people in a supposedly respected field are being paid to write this tripe.
 
, consider this, racial minorities are growing at an increasing rate and at a faster rate than the white majority. In general, nonwhite voters prefer the Democratic party over the GOP 70%-90%. Most of the youngest registered voters are nonwhite.


This is what the Dems keep saying will save them, and believing it and pushing it is what's destroying them.
 
I think we all know where the tankies would prefer the republicans to go.

It's funny how the Dems believe they are completely TRUE and HONEST in their politics, but the opposition aren't... to the degree that if you just deny them a platform, they'll give up as they'll be unable to NOT vote for you if there are no official "R" candidates on a ballot..... they honestly think that deplatforming WORKS when it comes to changing political beliefs, that out of sight is out of mind, that if you can't step up to a microphone, you can't actually hold any political ideas, that the political arena is Calvinball and they can make up any rule the want at any time and nobody can complain about it or connect the dots to the obvious shadiness of such make-it-up-as-you-go antics..... that without a demagogue, the average conservative can't tie their shoes, much less oppose you....
 
This is what the Dems keep saying will save them, and believing it and pushing it is what's destroying them.

The solution is to close our borders now. Stop the massive influx of immigrants who only get brainwashed into one way of thought, and rid ourselves of this parasite known as the democratic party. The problem that this plan is not democratic either, but democracies do not succeed in non homogeneous societies. It just does not work.
 
Yes, which is why the only thing wrong about this article isn't the inherent thought process of "politics isn't a dialogue, but a war, and the goal is to crush the Enemy utterly": it's that its targeting US instead of THEM. Destroy the Enemy, dehumanize yourself and embrace violence, etc.
Do you really think the average Democrat voter sits down and thinks "gee, I sure do like destroying civilization and castrating children, let me masturbate to footage of whites being tortured?"

An increasing number of those on the left are openly disdainful of the USA and it's government as a whole, yes.
 
Purely in terms of party structure, the Republican party is better because there are no Super Duper Trooper delagahts.
"Other people with different opinions to me get to vote, here's why that's a danger to democracy"

Universal enfranchisement was a mistake.
Oh, the irony.
An increasing number of those on the left are openly disdainful of the USA and it's government as a whole, yes.
*its
Lel, the moron!!!
 
An increasing number of those on the left are openly disdainful of the USA and it's government as a whole, yes.
Alright, so weasel words it is. Let me ask you again, this time without humor:
Do you really think the average Democrat voter is a Democrat because they are consciously and deliberately pro-the destruction of civilization and the mutilation of children, and the murder of the average American? Not "an increasing number". Not "a large minority". Do you believe the above outlines the thought process of the average voter for a Democratic candidate?
 
This is the face of the man who wrote this for reference. Looks way too soft and comfy. Also conveniently ignores Obama's drones strikes, failure to close Guantanamo Bay and started up shit in Libya and Syria. Also no wonder he is for gun control, do you think this man can fire a single 22 pistol without feeling the pain from the small recoil.

1223_SATMO_POLITICALCHAT2.jpg
That's the face of a person who's never worked a day in his life.

It'd take full-blown socialism for that fat goober to finally lose weight.
 
Just more "Demographics are Destiny" drivel.
demographics do matter, and you're going to find out sooner or later - for example, the next time you move out of your neighborhood because it's too, y'know, unsafe for your children. shitlibs will just brush yet another destroyed neighborhood off as "structural racism" and "inequality" which, of course, can be solved by just voting the right people into positions of power, just like how hugo chavez fixed everything and nothing bad ever happened in venezuela after he was elected. same with hitler. same with bernie. or even drumpf.

one serious problem with classical liberals and all of their offshoots, including marxists, is that people aren't all the same on the inside, which problematic when you're trying to homogenize everyone into the perfect consumer-drone, worker bee, or whatever purely materialist evolutionary endgoal the political sphere dreams up for its inhabitants. we're not all carbon copies of each other despite girardian mimicry being very real, and the more we beat out heads over with this idiot stick, the more we hurt ourselves and absolutely nobody else. nobody else on earth believes this trash except westerners, nobody else is forced to believe it or forces themselves to believe it, and it's the absolutely moronic hill the west has collectively decided to die on (i do believe spengler is right, but we're watching the tape play in fast-forward because of the rate of information exchange and global connectedness now). but i don't blame people necessarily for believing enlightenment lies still, it's hard to overnight undo ultimately disgenic beliefs that have 350 years of not being sufficiently challenged at the core. (compare: christianity since copernicus.)

When whites become a minority...
that point already passed, i must have missed the civil war that broke out over it.

The GOP will seize to exist. By in large the majority of Republican voters are white, the majority of people who support Donald Trump are white. Keeping that in mind, consider this, racial minorities are growing at an increasing rate and at a faster rate than the white majority. In general, nonwhite voters prefer the Democratic party over the GOP 70%-90%. Most of the youngest registered voters are nonwhite. Most of the people immigrating here are nonwhite. With a steady demographic shift over time you will see more states flip blue. Just like you saw Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, California flip blue. By the end of the decade it will be almost impossible for a Republicans to win the presidency. I say almost because you have to keep in mind a few things: For decades Republicans have alienated potential nonwhite voters with policies that largely affect their communities in a negative way, the Republican platform seems to contradict the values of many minorities, Trump is the most popular candidate with nonwhite voters in modern politics, however, he only won 4% of the black vote and 29% of the Hispanic vote in 2016. If the GOP wishes to survive, it will need to adapt and evolve it’s platform to include minority voter.
the final point i would add is that immigration and birthrates are nonlinear, and this is what ethnonarcissists of all stripes don't understand at all. demographics is destiny, but not the destiny you were thinking of, and only in the extreme short term (it is well-known that as a society comes near collapse, time preference of all parties becomes extremely high and becomes essentially a race to the bottom; open borders and UBI are prime examples of extremely high societal time preference for on one hand the ruling elites and on the other a slop-consumption drone often referred to as the average citizen).
the minorities of america are all convinced that when muh ypipo are gone, everything will be fine. surprise: it won't. sklavenmoral + ethnonarcissism != a successful society (unless you're ashkenazi i suppose, but that's the exception that proves the rule).

assuming that the US is still around in 30 years in similar shape, juan the illegal border hopper may indeed have 12 kids today, but those kids are all going to be fat and useless burger-munching sugarhogs and fentanyl addicts just as much as cletus and tyrone today are, and thus aren't likely to have they own keedz theyself's, or at least not an additional 12. just look at your average hispanic mostly raised in the good-ol estados unidos. why, he's more homogenized than the shit that's sold as milk at walmart, and yet he comes with that beautiful exterior paint job referred to "nonwhite." (the ideological system at work in the west right now is meant to produce docile consooomers with the exterior paint job of a tolerant society, but it's a psychological and sociological cross between crabs-in-a-bucket and a black hole.)

periods of high immigration also correlate with periods of war. no "explicit" war has broken out yet for some reason (it's been proxy wars such as the arab spring et al), but there's no reason to suppose the "pax-post-WWII" era will continue indefinitely. add a global pandemic as the appetizer and i'm sure everyone will be getting along just fine in the near future.
aside from all that, and assuming no war and that the high-fructose corn syrup keeps being extruded into everyones' mouths, prosperity is a curse you don't get to outlive without someone trying to take it from you while you're too satiated to defend yourself. or at least, nobody to my knowledge has done so yet. the finnish have always had to fend off others, so they're one of the few that get to be highly educated, successful, 1st world, and have a healthy ethnic identity without being narcissistic over it. but other than that i'm not sure.

just wait until the africans start turning up on new world shores by the aircraft carrier-load begging to eat your gourmet bigot bugs in your designer shipping container house in post-nueva-yorque. that's when you and your state-mandated roastie get to explain everything away to your mystery meat post-ethnic children.
the last line was a sort of joke. sort of.
 
demographics do matter, and you're going to find out sooner or later - for example, the next time you move out of your neighborhood because it's too, y'know, unsafe for your children. shitlibs will just brush yet another destroyed neighborhood off as "structural racism" and "inequality" which, of course, can be solved by just voting the right people into positions of power, just like how hugo chavez fixed everything and nothing bad ever happened in venezuela after he was elected. same with hitler. same with bernie. or even drumpf.

one serious problem with classical liberals and all of their offshoots, including marxists, is that people aren't all the same on the inside, which problematic when you're trying to homogenize everyone into the perfect consumer-drone, worker bee, or whatever purely materialist evolutionary endgoal the political sphere dreams up for its inhabitants. we're not all carbon copies of each other despite girardian mimicry being very real, and the more we beat out heads over with this idiot stick, the more we hurt ourselves and absolutely nobody else. nobody else on earth believes this trash except westerners, nobody else is forced to believe it or forces themselves to believe it, and it's the absolutely moronic hill the west has collectively decided to die on (i do believe spengler is right, but we're watching the tape play in fast-forward because of the rate of information exchange and global connectedness now). but i don't blame people necessarily for believing enlightenment lies still, it's hard to overnight undo ultimately disgenic beliefs that have 350 years of not being sufficiently challenged at the core. (compare: christianity since copernicus.)


that point already passed, i must have missed the civil war that broke out over it.


the final point i would add is that immigration and birthrates are nonlinear, and this is what ethnonarcissists of all stripes don't understand at all. demographics is destiny, but not the destiny you were thinking of, and only in the extreme short term (it is well-known that as a society comes near collapse, time preference of all parties becomes extremely high and becomes essentially a race to the bottom; open borders and UBI are prime examples of extremely high societal time preference for on one hand the ruling elites and on the other a slop-consumption drone often referred to as the average citizen).
the minorities of america are all convinced that when muh ypipo are gone, everything will be fine. surprise: it won't. sklavenmoral + ethnonarcissism != a successful society (unless you're ashkenazi i suppose, but that's the exception that proves the rule).

assuming that the US is still around in 30 years in similar shape, juan the illegal border hopper may indeed have 12 kids today, but those kids are all going to be fat and useless burger-munching sugarhogs and fentanyl addicts just as much as cletus and tyrone today are, and thus aren't likely to have they own keedz theyself's, or at least not an additional 12. just look at your average hispanic mostly raised in the good-ol estados unidos. why, he's more homogenized than the shit that's sold as tard cum at walmart, and yet he comes with that beautiful exterior paint job referred to "nonwhite." (the ideological system at work in the west right now is meant to produce docile consooomers with the exterior paint job of a tolerant society, but it's a psychological and sociological cross between crabs-in-a-bucket and a black hole.)

periods of high immigration also correlate with periods of war. no "explicit" war has broken out yet for some reason (it's been proxy wars such as the arab spring et al), but there's no reason to suppose the "pax-post-WWII" era will continue indefinitely. add a global pandemic as the appetizer and i'm sure everyone will be getting along just fine in the near future.
aside from all that, and assuming no war and that the high-fructose corn syrup keeps being extruded into everyones' mouths, prosperity is a curse you don't get to outlive without someone trying to take it from you while you're too satiated to defend yourself. or at least, nobody to my knowledge has done so yet. the finnish have always had to fend off others, so they're one of the few that get to be highly educated, successful, 1st world, and have a healthy ethnic identity without being narcissistic over it. but other than that i'm not sure.

just wait until the africans start turning up on new world shores by the aircraft carrier-load begging to eat your gourmet bigot bugs in your designer shipping container house in post-nueva-yorque. that's when you and your state-mandated roastie get to explain everything away to your mystery meat post-ethnic children.
the last line was a sort of joke. sort of.
Shut up, you fucking spaz.
 
Alright, so weasel words it is. Let me ask you again, this time without humor:
Do you really think the average Democrat voter is a Democrat because they are consciously and deliberately pro-the destruction of civilization and the mutilation of children, and the murder of the average American? Not "an increasing number". Not "a large minority". Do you believe the above outlines the thought process of the average voter for a Democratic candidate?

Hmmmm, I can only guess the exact number, but yes, I'd say a large percentage of Democrat voters are as you describe more or less.

An "average" Democrat voter is becoming increasingly rare, the nuts are running the nuthouse of that party and anyone who isn't down with the insanity is probably not so quick to describe themselves as a Democrat as they used to be, if they aren't then they are surprisingly ok with the insanity.

This is anecdotal of course, but I've interacted with "average" Democrats online and none of them that I met really give a single shit about the radicals on the left, all they care about is "kids in cages" and their blind hatred of Trump, so even if they aren't "pro-the destruction of civilization and the mutilation of children, and the murder of the average American" they sure aren't upset about the ones who are.

Now in the interest of fairness, this is happening to the right as well, this extreme polarization is happening both left and right, I call it the "great coalescing" everyone is being forced into one of two camps, everything is increasingly one side or the other.

I'm not totally comfortable with everything I see happening on the right either, there's a rise of open racism and sexism on the right just like there's a rise of open anti-white racism and anti-Americanism on the left, everyone is saying "fuck it" and taking the gloves off.

I don't like it but I didn't start this fight and if I have to choose a side I'm going with the side that's at the end of the day pro-US, because this is fundamentally a battle over whether there's going to be USA as we know it, if any "average Democrats" don't realize they're on the side of destroying the US they're blind idiots that need to wake up.
 
Back