You can wait for his mental gymnastics but I’m sure you know where this is going.

i really liked her in the last election, but she got annihilated real quick in the beginning. probably the same thing will happen in the next

Now go one step further.

WHY is she demanding the purge? She's a life long Republican.

Could it have something with the fact that A HUGE PORTION OF THE PARTY IS ACTIVELY SUBVERTING DEMOCRACY!??!?!?!?!??!?!!?

Jews aren't white.

Also, they want white people dead because their hatred for white people is so great that it has over-ridden their rational mind. They probably know that they need white people around but they don't care. They only have the total dissolution of the white race in mind.

Or could it be that she dislikes the direction the party has taken under Trump, so that her preferred policies no longer have a future?
And again: she's lashing out not just against those Republicans who belong to the purported "huge portion of the party that is actively subverting democracy", she is also lashing out at mild-mannered folks who kept a distance from Trump, like Glenn Youngkin.


It's blatantly obvious that she never liked Trump or the ideological shift he spurred within the party. She quickly rose through the ranks thanks to her father's network - the remnants of the neocon wing of the GOP pushed her into a position from which she could emerge as one of the leaders and faces of the party in case the Trump era proved a temporary aberration, like they still hoped at the time. Once she realized that the party had gone too far down the trumpist rabbit hole and would not go back to its old ways for the forseeable future, it became obvious that her political ambitions (become a leading figure of a neocon GOP) had just gone up in smoke. So she fully turned on the party and changed her role into "Pelosi Repubican" to stay relevant and still get a platform for her criticism.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Oct 21 2022 10:59am

Youngkin has placated Trump whenever possible to keep himself from being a target. Saying he's "kept Trump at a distance" is inaccurate. He's kept him at arm's length, but isn't pushing back from Trump in any meaningful sense. He won't deny that the election was stolen, which all on its own puts Youngkin on the side of Trump in the issue of subverting our Democracy. Anything but unambiguous condemnation of Trump's election lies are becuase there is nothing of substance to them.

The ideological shift is minor at best. Trump "tried to settle things down with North Korea" by cozying up to a dictator and allowing him to finish his nuclear program. He "withdrew from the middle east" after upping the drone war 400% and timing the withdrawal for after he was out of office so he wouldn't risk his electoral chances (and after over 20 total years. Hardly a stunning and brave shift). He sucked off the Saudis and his son took billions of dollars from them while he shipped them weapons to help with a genocide (something Biden continued). Trump still gave tax breaks while allowing those companies to outsource.

The neocon faction of the party is still solidly in control. There is very little for Cheney to be upset over in terms of the party direction EXCEPT the obvious turn towards fascism and blatant lies to undermine the Democracy.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Oct 21 2022 11:11am

Tldr: in your view, any Republican who isn't willing to commit outright political suicide is complicit in "subverting democracy".
Btw, if I may ask: why do you always spell the word "democracy" with a capital D?


You forget to mention that Trump resisted the pull to drag the US into the Syrian civil war; and later withdrew from Northern Syria against he indignant protests of the generals and FP establishment. He also managed to keep the Russia-Ukraine situation lowkey and helped broker historic peace deals in the Middle East.

Side note: imho, ramping up the drone war would have happened under any president to the right of Bernie. Being able to hit targets without risking the bad optics of American soldiers in body bags is just too convenient; it's simply the future of asymmetric warfare.


The Bush/Cheney/McCain faction of the party is still solidly in control? Seriously?

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Oct 21 2022 12:06pm

Following Romney's defeat in 2012, elite consensus was that the Republican party needed to move left on social issues. It wasn't groundbreaking, you can imagine the Conservative party of Canada as a roadmap for where they wanted to go. There's always been an uneasy alliance between the business wing and the broader conservative (mostly evangelical) base. The thought was, that by moving left, they could make inroads in Hispanic communities while maintaining / increasing their edge among white suburbanites. As for the socially conservative right, where else were they going to go? The Republican autopsy led directly to the Jeb Bush (JEB!) candidacy, and he became the immediate front-runner for the 2016 nomination. But he lost to Trump, who tore up the 2012 autopsy and ran on the hard-right on immigration and crime. Meanwhile, Trump softened his economic language and pivoted completely on trade. The 2012 Republicans were a pro-TPP, anti-tariff party. Trump was emphatically anti-TPP and pro-tariffs. On the economic front, Trump was pro-Medicare and pro-Social Security; he went so far as to guarantee voters that he would not cut either program. That represented a major shift to the left compared to Republican elite consensus, which favored Paul Ryan's privatization program. George W. Bush had previously tried (and failed) to partially privatize Social Security. Both policy shifts were popular. His unapologetic language on immigration energized the base, and Trump's brand of economic nationalism led to the mass defection of blue-collar whites from the Democratic party. Meanwhile, the Republicans lost votes in the suburbs, where voters were discomforted by Trump's character and the harshness of his rhetoric. And perhaps most surprisingly, his hard-right language on immigration did not lead to worse performance among Hispanics, where he proceeded to outperform Romney. The 2016 election was a test, and the Trump candidacy led to both a victory and a Republican bias in the electoral college. Democrats might rail about it today, but in doing so they forget that the Democratic party under Obama actually held the electoral college edge. Trump led to a far more efficient concentration of votes.

And now we get to Liz Cheney, who is a neoconservative, pro-business Republican elite through and through. But the Republican base is no longer neoconservative, that died with the Iraq War, and the base is no longer nearly so pro-business, at least insofar as they want to act on illegal immigration and exploitative trade with China. And so Cheney blames Trump for the loss of control of her faction over the Republican party. His gain is her loss. She bided her time, and then struck when he looked weak. But what she misunderstands, or misunderstood, is that "that" Republican party no longer exists. It's dead, and you can't bring it back. And so voters responded by kicking her out, and now she's a raging nobody left to spend her time on MSNBC shilling for everything with which she once purported to disagree. Good riddance.

Anybody who does not outright condemn the DENYING OF ELECTION RESULTS is absolutely subverting democracy. This is not something any reasonable person should disagree with. You're basically saying "well, Nazi collaborators didn't gas the jews themselves, they just didn't offer any resistance and gave some names". Yes, they are complicit. If you aren't actively resisting subversion of democracy you are part of the problem. It's pretty pathetic that the West's morals are such garbage that a huge portion of us can't see that.

@ Bold - You basically just gave the game away lol. Things that Trump does that are in-line with neocons are "something that can happen under any president". Meanwhile things that aren't in line are "Trump making a significant deviation from the neocons". Even though no president is 100% neocon and resists pressures to get involved in lots of places. Obama sent weapons but didn't commit troops. By your standard that would have been the same thing. "Could have happened under any president"

The Bush/Cheney/McCain faction still have their POLICY views represented in almost totality. Trump did not meaningfully deviate from Bush / McCain / Obama neocon foreign policy. Again, this is about a policy deviation (Tulsi) versus a principaled deviation (Cheney). Tulsi has flipped on policy several times in the past 10 years. Cheney has been consistent and her policies are still represented except in the case of blatant subversion of democracy.


As to why I capitalize it, I was never sure if I was supposed to honestly.

She is hot asf until she opens her mouth