Republican Party - General Discussion

Lisa Perez50 said:Kovač says he agreed to some TV merger. I'm guessing it's either CNN or PBS? Anyone got the inside scoop?

Did this guy lose his grip on reality for a second? It's like he thinks he's running for President instead of just trying to land the job as the head of the department.
Honestly, he'd be much better off avoiding live appearances and those kinds of statements that just make everyone realize how clueless they actually are...

And honestly, who even cares about their little showdown? Why on earth should PBS be broadcasting a face-off between two people who are basically just auditioning for the role of head of a criminal syndicate!?🤦

I can't even begin to wrap my head around what they're pulling now. It’s like watching a slow-motion train wreck where everyone knows the crash is coming, but they just keep adding more fuel to the fire anyway. Honestly, it's exhausting. You look at how things are being handled—it's pure chaos, nothing more, nothing less. Just total, unadulterated messiness from the top down.

Charles Carter4 said:And honestly, who even cares about their little showdown? Why on earth should PBS be broadcasting a face-off between two people who are basically just auditioning for the role of head of a criminal syndicate!?🤦

I mean, seriously, why would a Republican network even bother broadcasting a pathetic little showdown between two guys just clawing at each other to be the next leader of the Republican Party? It’s honestly ridiculous. 🙂

Maybe you should try rephrasing that question.

Lisa Perez50 said:Kovač says he agreed to some TV merger. I'm guessing it's either CNN or PBS? Anyone got the inside scoop?

The Republicans don't really tune into the liberal, "pro-American" vibe over at CNN, so I wouldn't assume it's them, even though they did offer up some space for a debate...

If Pleković doesn't agree to the confrontation, does it really matter if Kovač said yes? At the end of the day, he's the one standing his ground and insisting on it, isn't he?

Even the Republicans want a seat at the table on CNN. I guess any airtime is good airtime, right? Stier mentioned there might be a debate this Saturday.
It’s definitely not happening on FOX, because you know Damir Gregoret would just be asking Kovač which network they're actually on. Maybe it's NBC, though I highly doubt it. Or maybe it's PBS or CNN. ☕

Lisa Perez50 said:Even the Republicans want a seat at the table on CNN. I guess any airtime is good airtime, right? Stier mentioned there might be a debate this Saturday.
It’s definitely not happening on FOX, because you know Damir Gregoret would just be asking Kovač which network they're actually on. Maybe it's NBC, though I highly doubt it. Or maybe it's PBS or CNN. ☕

It’s true that Republican officials tend to pop up everywhere these days, but since the average voter isn't really paying close attention, does it even matter in the end? That seems to be the only thing that counts here...

Lisa Perez50 said:Even the Republicans want a seat at the table on CNN. I guess any airtime is good airtime, right? Stier mentioned there might be a debate this Saturday.
It’s definitely not happening on FOX, because you know Damir Gregoret would just be asking Kovač which network they're actually on. Maybe it's NBC, though I highly doubt it. Or maybe it's PBS or CNN. ☕

And now look at what Index is reporting here:

Word on the street is that the big face-off is scheduled for March 14th on FOX, right on the eve of the internal party elections.

Adam Collins4 said:In my view, that's your first flawed premise right there...

Because if the system were actually functioning properly, you wouldn't have these "broken" kids in the first place... instead, the system would be doing its job through its employees to ensure kids develop normally—not like the example you gave...

Or mine—where a kid nearly three years old is practically screaming unless every single lightbulb in the house is turned on when it's dark... one was a situation you could actually work toward improving, while the other was an absolute nightmare until we finally sorted things out...

And honestly, the best part is that the fear wasn't caused by the other kids—it was quite literally the fault of the system itself...

The issue is that they don't share the same lifestyle, the same values, or even the same worldview... or any kind of shared perspective on life...

You were recently talking about people only looking out for their own interests...

And frankly, the only adoptive parents I see who are purely looking out for themselves are gay couples... mostly because it's the only way they can have kids...

And again, it comes back to the system being the problem...

The answer isn't to hand children over to just anyone or letting just anyone have them... it's about the system reacting promptly and effectively...

No, their life isn't "equal" to mine... okay, maybe "equal" isn't even the right word here...

But if our lives were truly identical, we could have children... but we can't...

So, there's no parallel to be drawn...

I can do everything they can, but they can't do everything I can...

And what about a child who has to deal with being different because they don't have a mother?

P.S. I wasn't talking specifically about this one couple...

I don't know, somehow the loudest outrage seems to be focused on the gay couple...

If this weren't a carnival, I'd condemn it...

Since it *is* a carnival, it passes as satire—just like how person's "performances" pass as art, I guess...

Just apply the same standard to everyone... nothing more than that...

Let's be real here; it’s not like they can't find a surrogate. Most of the gay folks I run into are doing pretty well for themselves professionally and financially. They could make it happen. But honestly, I don't think that's what they want; they'd rather give a home to a kid who's already out there waiting in the system.

Quincy:

The answer isn't about handing kids off to just anyone or letting anyone have them... it's about having a system that reacts quickly and effectively...

And even then, you'd still have those kids who are harder to place, not to mention the ones that nobody seems to want at all.

Quincy:

No, their life isn't as "right" as mine... okay, maybe "right" isn't the best word for it... But if it were exactly like mine, they could have children... but they can't...

That's just not true. Not everyone living your way of life is unable to have kids. So, "your lifestyle" isn't some kind of guarantee regarding whether or not someone can have children.

Quincy:

What happens to a child who has to deal with being different because they don't have a mother?

Are we assuming only kids raised by gay couples would be without a mother? These kids in foster care have mothers too, right? Or is it somehow better to stay in a group home, where they're also without a mother, just so they aren't with "those people"?
And what about the hundreds of kids growing up right now in families without a mother simply because she passed away?
I wonder what would have happened to that little boy from that female monster in San Francisco if he hadn't had a mother. He probably would be alive today.

A televised debate is finally on the horizon. Dr. Smith already gave the green light, so now we’re just waiting for the Prime Minister to lock in the date. With the election looming, I’m actually looking forward to seeing a top-tier leader go toe-to-toe in this format. Credit to both the PM and Smith for agreeing to this clash; it’s a solid move for strengthening democracy, both within the party and across the country.

Especially after those failed referendums, this showdown is vital. It’s a chance for them to restore at least a shred of faith in our democratic process, both internally and nationwide.

hollowmason64 said:Let's be real here; it’s not like they can't find a surrogate. Most of the gay folks I run into are doing pretty well for themselves professionally and financially. They could make it happen. But honestly, I don't think that's what they want; they'd rather give a home to a kid who's already out there waiting in the system.

Quincy:

The answer isn't about handing kids off to just anyone or letting anyone have them... it's about having a system that reacts quickly and effectively...

And even then, you'd still have those kids who are harder to place, not to mention the ones that nobody seems to want at all.

Quincy:

No, their life isn't as "right" as mine... okay, maybe "right" isn't the best word for it... But if it were exactly like mine, they could have children... but they can't...

That's just not true. Not everyone living your way of life is unable to have kids. So, "your lifestyle" isn't some kind of guarantee regarding whether or not someone can have children.

Quincy:

What happens to a child who has to deal with being different because they don't have a mother?

Are we assuming only kids raised by gay couples would be without a mother? These kids in foster care have mothers too, right? Or is it somehow better to stay in a group home, where they're also without a mother, just so they aren't with "those people"?
And what about the hundreds of kids growing up right now in families without a mother simply because she passed away?
I wonder what would have happened to that little boy from that female monster in San Francisco if he hadn't had a mother. He probably would be alive today.

Sure, anyone can ask for whatever they want... the catch is the legal framework...

And again, they're just looking out for themselves—they want something they simply cannot have through natural means... at all.

hollowmason64 said:Let's be real here; it’s not like they can't find a surrogate. Most of the gay folks I run into are doing pretty well for themselves professionally and financially. They could make it happen. But honestly, I don't think that's what they want; they'd rather give a home to a kid who's already out there waiting in the system.

Quincy:

The answer isn't about handing kids off to just anyone or letting anyone have them... it's about having a system that reacts quickly and effectively...

And even then, you'd still have those kids who are harder to place, not to mention the ones that nobody seems to want at all.

Quincy:

No, their life isn't as "right" as mine... okay, maybe "right" isn't the best word for it... But if it were exactly like mine, they could have children... but they can't...

That's just not true. Not everyone living your way of life is unable to have kids. So, "your lifestyle" isn't some kind of guarantee regarding whether or not someone can have children.

Quincy:

What happens to a child who has to deal with being different because they don't have a mother?

Are we assuming only kids raised by gay couples would be without a mother? These kids in foster care have mothers too, right? Or is it somehow better to stay in a group home, where they're also without a mother, just so they aren't with "those people"?
And what about the hundreds of kids growing up right now in families without a mother simply because she passed away?
I wonder what would have happened to that little boy from that female monster in San Francisco if he hadn't had a mother. He probably would be alive today.

There is absolutely no way to know that for sure...😉

hollowmason64 said:Let's be real here; it’s not like they can't find a surrogate. Most of the gay folks I run into are doing pretty well for themselves professionally and financially. They could make it happen. But honestly, I don't think that's what they want; they'd rather give a home to a kid who's already out there waiting in the system.

Quincy:

The answer isn't about handing kids off to just anyone or letting anyone have them... it's about having a system that reacts quickly and effectively...

And even then, you'd still have those kids who are harder to place, not to mention the ones that nobody seems to want at all.

Quincy:

No, their life isn't as "right" as mine... okay, maybe "right" isn't the best word for it... But if it were exactly like mine, they could have children... but they can't...

That's just not true. Not everyone living your way of life is unable to have kids. So, "your lifestyle" isn't some kind of guarantee regarding whether or not someone can have children.

Quincy:

What happens to a child who has to deal with being different because they don't have a mother?

Are we assuming only kids raised by gay couples would be without a mother? These kids in foster care have mothers too, right? Or is it somehow better to stay in a group home, where they're also without a mother, just so they aren't with "those people"?
And what about the hundreds of kids growing up right now in families without a mother simply because she passed away?
I wonder what would have happened to that little boy from that female monster in San Francisco if he hadn't had a mother. He probably would be alive today.

You've got your wires crossed here... first off, I never claimed my lifestyle was a guarantee for anything...

Second—and this is important—couples dealing with infertility are facing a medical condition. Now, if I wanted to play your game, I could twist the narrative and start linking homosexuality to illness...😉

So, using sick hetero couples as an argument against a gay population that wants to have kids is just a complete miss...

hollowmason64 said:Let's be real here; it’s not like they can't find a surrogate. Most of the gay folks I run into are doing pretty well for themselves professionally and financially. They could make it happen. But honestly, I don't think that's what they want; they'd rather give a home to a kid who's already out there waiting in the system.

Quincy:

The answer isn't about handing kids off to just anyone or letting anyone have them... it's about having a system that reacts quickly and effectively...

And even then, you'd still have those kids who are harder to place, not to mention the ones that nobody seems to want at all.

Quincy:

No, their life isn't as "right" as mine... okay, maybe "right" isn't the best word for it... But if it were exactly like mine, they could have children... but they can't...

That's just not true. Not everyone living your way of life is unable to have kids. So, "your lifestyle" isn't some kind of guarantee regarding whether or not someone can have children.

Quincy:

What happens to a child who has to deal with being different because they don't have a mother?

Are we assuming only kids raised by gay couples would be without a mother? These kids in foster care have mothers too, right? Or is it somehow better to stay in a group home, where they're also without a mother, just so they aren't with "those people"?
And what about the hundreds of kids growing up right now in families without a mother simply because she passed away?
I wonder what would have happened to that little boy from that female monster in San Francisco if he hadn't had a mother. He probably would be alive today.

Once again, you're just swapping arguments and throwing out fallacies...

It is not the same thing when you actually HAD a mother versus when you never had one in your life... and it's certainly different when your mother acts like some dude in a pink shirt...😉

And here we go again—it’s always about the system, the system, the system... look, you can't just point to some systemic glitch or one person's individual failings and try to use that as a justification for gay couples and their adoption rights...

..."where nearly four million Americans overseas hold only three seats in the US Congress"

Yeah, I suppose that really is quite a small number.
With the current 435 members in the House, maybe there should be at least another 30 representing those abroad...😉

Smith says so.🙂

granitecyclist said:..."where nearly four million Americans overseas hold only three seats in the US Congress"

Yeah, I suppose that really is quite a small number.
With the current 435 members in the House, maybe there should be at least another 30 representing those abroad...😉

Smith says so.🙂

For a nation like the United States—given our actual scale, population, and current economic vulnerabilities—it would be perfectly sufficient to shrink the bureaucracy significantly. We could function just fine with a Congress of roughly sixty members instead of hundreds, reduce our state governments to a handful of major regions rather than fifty, consolidate our municipalities into a few hundred instead of thousands, and trim the federal cabinet down to ten ministries. Even the Supreme Court wouldn't need more than half its current roster to get the job done.

The Republican Party, in both its current and former iterations, has woven such an extensive web of patronage and voter loyalty that they have become nearly untouchable. To truly address the systemic rot, one must strip them of at least two seats in Congress to break their stranglehold on power. Only then can we elect representatives who possess the actual will to confront this crisis head-on.

The Republican Party has inflicted such profound damage that we require at least one full term under entirely different leadership just to grasp the true scale of the wreckage before any meaningful path forward can even be contemplated.

Smith’s proposal is an absolute disgrace. We require more people like Glasnović in Congress and within the budget office until the day they die.

Robin Jones2 said:For a nation like the United States—given our actual scale, population, and current economic vulnerabilities—it would be perfectly sufficient to shrink the bureaucracy significantly. We could function just fine with a Congress of roughly sixty members instead of hundreds, reduce our state governments to a handful of major regions rather than fifty, consolidate our municipalities into a few hundred instead of thousands, and trim the federal cabinet down to ten ministries. Even the Supreme Court wouldn't need more than half its current roster to get the job done.

The Republican Party, in both its current and former iterations, has woven such an extensive web of patronage and voter loyalty that they have become nearly untouchable. To truly address the systemic rot, one must strip them of at least two seats in Congress to break their stranglehold on power. Only then can we elect representatives who possess the actual will to confront this crisis head-on.

The Republican Party has inflicted such profound damage that we require at least one full term under entirely different leadership just to grasp the true scale of the wreckage before any meaningful path forward can even be contemplated.

Smith’s proposal is an absolute disgrace. We require more people like Glasnović in Congress and within the budget office until the day they die.

It isn't just Kovach; honestly, I don't think any serious political party is even addressing this. Your observations seem quite spot on and relevant, and they're things most well-meaning people realize, but...
if the Republican Party were to—by some miracle—lose an election, I imagine the "deep state" would suddenly wake up, consisting of all those various veteran advocacy groups that, strangely enough, seem to be staying very quiet right now.

I guess I should probably mention what Quincy said...

granitecyclist said:..."where nearly four million Americans overseas hold only three seats in the US Congress"

Yeah, I suppose that really is quite a small number.
With the current 435 members in the House, maybe there should be at least another 30 representing those abroad...😉

Smith says so.🙂

Someone really needs to sit him down and explain two things to him... seriously.

I mean, they really ought to take a closer look at how many of those "four million" people actually show up to vote when election day rolls around!
It’s also worth pointing out that this tiny little group he keeps talking about? Most of them aren't even "emigrants" like he claims. I mean, they haven't actually lived here, if you know what I mean. Maybe they just show up to vote, but they've never truly called this place home.

I guess having three seats for the diaspora is probably... I don't know, maybe three seats too many? Just my two cents!

briskjackal5

granitecyclist said:..."where nearly four million Americans overseas hold only three seats in the US Congress"

Yeah, I suppose that really is quite a small number.
With the current 435 members in the House, maybe there should be at least another 30 representing those abroad...😉

Smith says so.🙂

Ten million immigrants coming in here and getting a vote? Sure, they can have it... as long as they’re all voting for that criminal outfit.

Every single American citizen will be granted the right to vote. This is a global norm and remains the fundamental civilizational standard for the 21st century. We must, therefore, prepare ourselves for a significant surge in the total number of votes cast, as this expansion is an inevitable progression.

"I am calling on all candidates for the Republican Party vice presidency to participate in a public debate across our national television and radio networks. Furthermore, considering the public's right to stay informed and how vital this issue is for the entire American people, I am asking the dear friend of NBC, Secretary of Culture Elon Musk, to authorize this on national television," John Doe posted on social media.

I can't help but feel that this is just fundamentally wrong, perhaps in more ways than one could even count.

The people = the party = the state.

One God, one people, one state, one leader.

I suppose that is just the typical partisan mindset at work here—it almost borders on national socialist ideology, if you ask me.

I guess Smith would rather be out there confronting people in small towns and rural corners instead of just sticking to televised debates like everyone else.🤦
If someone actually cares, they'll catch it on cable; if they don't, why bother wasting the effort?
And looking at his numbers, he’s only got about three representatives from the overseas crowd🤦 What’s the logic there—does he need one diaspora rep for every single local official? Because we all know how much of a blessing those overseas political players have been.🤣

Social media is currently buzzing with four different petitions aimed at forcing the US Congress to implement a tax on hospitality services. So far, just over 770 citizens have stepped up to sign.

The whole thing kicked off when a receipt surfaced from a cafe right near the Capitol building, clearly showing that no tax had been charged. Apparently, people have finally had enough of this loophole.

https://www.chicago.info/aktualno/zg/...-porez/254764/

Only 770 people? Wow.
At this rate, we aren't going to change a damn thing. 🙏

https://www.peticija24.com/peticija_...vatskom_saboru

Adam Collins4 said:Sure, anyone can ask for whatever they want... the catch is the legal framework...

And again, they're just looking out for themselves—they want something they simply cannot have through natural means... at all.

There is absolutely no way to know that for sure...😉

You've got your wires crossed here... first off, I never claimed my lifestyle was a guarantee for anything...

Second—and this is important—couples dealing with infertility are facing a medical condition. Now, if I wanted to play your game, I could twist the narrative and start linking homosexuality to illness...😉

So, using sick hetero couples as an argument against a gay population that wants to have kids is just a complete miss...

Once again, you're just swapping arguments and throwing out fallacies...

It is not the same thing when you actually HAD a mother versus when you never had one in your life... and it's certainly different when your mother acts like some dude in a pink shirt...😉

And here we go again—it’s always about the system, the system, the system... look, you can't just point to some systemic glitch or one person's individual failings and try to use that as a justification for gay couples and their adoption rights...

What "trick"? That's nothing a decent lawyer couldn't figure out within the regulations.

Quinn:

There really is no way for us to know...😉

Actually, we can. Foster homes are full of kids that nobody specifically wants, yet legally, they can be fully adopted rather than just placed in temporary care.

Quinn:

So, using struggling heterosexual couples as an argument for the gay population wanting children is totally off base...

I'm just trying to show you that your claim—that they can't have kids unless they're paired with someone of the opposite sex—doesn't hold water. Even that isn't a guarantee.

Quinn:

It's not the same thing whether you actually HAD a mother or if you never had one at all... especially when your mother acts like some dude in a pink shirt...😉

There are kids who never had a mother because she passed away during childbirth, or died when they were too young to even remember her.
And frankly, having any kind of mother—even a "bro" type in a pink shirt—is better than having none at all. Look, I could give you a link to a case right here in the States where a mother and father of nine were convicted; you'd see the state those kids were living in before CPS stepped in.
You're accusing me of twisting your points, yet you're the one constantly idealizing parents, even though some of them are worse than animals.