I'm personally at a loss to what Lindsay Graham is doing. In what world does solidifying the GOP as the pro-abortion party in 2022 read as a good messaging strategy?
It pretty clear to me.
if it’s one issue and people can address it as one issue people are overwhelmingly pro choice (look at Kansas)
when it’s combined into a platform it keeps the conservative coalition together. One issue voters on guns, taxes, abortion, white nationalism, immigration, critical race theory. If any of those other groups aren’t pro life it doesn’t matter to them and they still vote GOP as their primary issue is being addressed. They still need the pro life vote
abortion is a losing issue as a single issue. They absolutely aren’t making that mistake again if they can avoid it. Keeping it a legislative issue it’s much harder to prevent it from becoming law
in a 50/50 state with all democrats being pro choice it’s way harder to expect a pro choice Republican to actually vote for a democrat. In Kansas which is far more conservative, none of the Republican voters had to vote for an actual democrat, they voted on their position on abortion only. They will still continue to overwhelmingly vote for Republican candidates who happen to be pro life though
Is Graham not making this a referendum on pro/anti-choice by pushing a bill to restrict and unilaterally stating that this is what the GOP will do if in power after the midterm elections? As you said - in that scenario, people vote overwhelmingly pro-choice, so I'm still not seeing the logic.
On the long-term voter count impact, I hear you - anti-choice is one more cohort of single-issue voters for the GOP to have. That said, there's already an almost implicit understanding that the GOP will be the most anti-choice decision you can make. In addition, to gain that cohort will likely cost any/all pro-choice voters, and likely activate additional pro-choice voters. Just one guy's opinion - I don't think the math will show this to be a net gain in states where it matters (purple states) when all is said and done.
I don’t think so.
no pro choice republican I know is voting democratic reguardless of how crazy republicans get on the anti abortion issues. They aren’t defined by being pro choice, they are defined by being republicans. Republicans vote for republicans not democrats.
Not making it an issue and the pro life voters may stay home though as that’s their issue and the only reason they vote. The rest of the party has their own priorities and as long as that gets addressed they are fine
In my opinion it was the only play to make
log cabin republicans still vote for republicans and the party is against everything they stand for. I guess tax policy is more important than the fact the GOP hates gay people? I see no difference in pro choice republicans. They might disagree but that isn’t changing their vote.
they aren’t deciding the abortion issue in a vacuum as they did in Kansas. That’s the point. They are weighing the abortion issue in the context of having to actively support the Democratic Party as the alternative which isn’t happening. It’s entirely different and people in Kansas did not have to do that
Americans are both pro gay rights and pro choice pretty overwhelmingly. You wouldn’t know it based on who they choose to vote for though or the laws being passed by the people they elect. That’s the disconnect
i saw eric schmitt, mo state attorney general and candidate for senate at the pj show in st louis last night. i knew him when we were in high school and played travel baseball with him for a couple of years before college. he is the antithesis of everything the band stands for. he was a jerk when i knew him, and he is even worse of a person now than he was then. i am shocked that he even went to the show. i would think ted nugent would be more his style. based on the picture he tweeted today, i had better seats than him, so one of his donors clearly did not buy them for him.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
i saw eric schmitt, mo state attorney general and candidate for senate at the pj show in st louis last night. i knew him when we were in high school and played travel baseball with him for a couple of years before college. he is the antithesis of everything the band stands for. he was a jerk when i knew him, and he is even worse of a person now than he was then. i am shocked that he even went to the show. i would think ted nugent would be more his style. based on the picture he tweeted today, i had better seats than him, so one of his donors clearly did not buy them for him.
Closet PJ fan??? Interesting. Politicians will not only sell their souls but apparently their life pleasures for their careers.
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,015
i saw eric schmitt, mo state attorney general and candidate for senate at the pj show in st louis last night. i knew him when we were in high school and played travel baseball with him for a couple of years before college. he is the antithesis of everything the band stands for. he was a jerk when i knew him, and he is even worse of a person now than he was then. i am shocked that he even went to the show. i would think ted nugent would be more his style. based on the picture he tweeted today, i had better seats than him, so one of his donors clearly did not buy them for him.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,015
Texas sheriff investigating flights to Martha's Vineyard
By PAUL J. WEBER
Today
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A Texas sheriff on Monday opened an investigation into two flights of migrants sent to Martha's Vineyard by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, but did not say what laws may have been broken in putting 48 Venezuelans on private planes last week from San Antonio.
Bexar County Sheriff Javier Salazar, an elected Democrat, railed against the flights that took off in his city as political posturing. But he said investigators had so far only spoken to attorneys representing some of the migrants and did not name any potential suspects who might face charges.
He also did not mention DeSantis in a news conference that appeared to mark the first time a law enforcement official has said they would look into the flights.
“I believe there is some criminal activity involved here,” Salazar said. “But at present we are trying to keep an open mind and we are going to investigate to find out what exact laws were broken if that does turn out to be the case.”
DeSantis' office responded with a statement that said the migrants had been given more options to succeed in Massachusetts.
“Immigrants have been more than willing to leave Bexar County after being abandoned, homeless, and ‘left to fend for themselves,'” DeSantis spokesperson Taryn Fenske said. “Florida gave them an opportunity to seek greener pastures in a sanctuary jurisdiction that offered greater resources for them, as we expected.”
The Venezuelan migrants who were flown to the wealthy Massachusetts island from San Antonio on Wednesday said they were told they were going to Boston. Julio Henriquez, an attorney who met with several migrants, said they “had no idea of where they were going or where they were.”
He said a Latina woman approached migrants at a city-run shelter in San Antonio and put them up at a nearby La Quinta Inn, where she visited daily with food and gift cards. She promised jobs and three months of housing in Washington, New York, Philadelphia and Boston, according to Henriquez.
Salazar said the migrants had been “preyed upon” and “hoodwinked.”
Some Democrats have urged the Justice Department to investigate the flights, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom and U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro, whose district includes San Antonio.
A federal investigation might be complicated, however. It’s not clear whether anyone boarded buses or planes unwillingly, or that their civil rights were violated. The rights of asylum seekers arriving to the U.S. are also more limited because they are not citizens. The constitution, though, does protect them from discrimination based on race or national origin and from improper treatment by the government.
___
Associated Press reporters Acacia Coronado and David Fischer in Miami contributed to this report.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Texas sheriff investigating flights to Martha's Vineyard
By PAUL J. WEBER
Today
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A Texas sheriff on Monday opened an investigation into two flights of migrants sent to Martha's Vineyard by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, but did not say what laws may have been broken in putting 48 Venezuelans on private planes last week from San Antonio.
Bexar County Sheriff Javier Salazar, an elected Democrat, railed against the flights that took off in his city as political posturing. But he said investigators had so far only spoken to attorneys representing some of the migrants and did not name any potential suspects who might face charges.
He also did not mention DeSantis in a news conference that appeared to mark the first time a law enforcement official has said they would look into the flights.
“I believe there is some criminal activity involved here,” Salazar said. “But at present we are trying to keep an open mind and we are going to investigate to find out what exact laws were broken if that does turn out to be the case.”
DeSantis' office responded with a statement that said the migrants had been given more options to succeed in Massachusetts.
“Immigrants have been more than willing to leave Bexar County after being abandoned, homeless, and ‘left to fend for themselves,'” DeSantis spokesperson Taryn Fenske said. “Florida gave them an opportunity to seek greener pastures in a sanctuary jurisdiction that offered greater resources for them, as we expected.”
The Venezuelan migrants who were flown to the wealthy Massachusetts island from San Antonio on Wednesday said they were told they were going to Boston. Julio Henriquez, an attorney who met with several migrants, said they “had no idea of where they were going or where they were.”
He said a Latina woman approached migrants at a city-run shelter in San Antonio and put them up at a nearby La Quinta Inn, where she visited daily with food and gift cards. She promised jobs and three months of housing in Washington, New York, Philadelphia and Boston, according to Henriquez.
Salazar said the migrants had been “preyed upon” and “hoodwinked.”
Some Democrats have urged the Justice Department to investigate the flights, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom and U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro, whose district includes San Antonio.
A federal investigation might be complicated, however. It’s not clear whether anyone boarded buses or planes unwillingly, or that their civil rights were violated. The rights of asylum seekers arriving to the U.S. are also more limited because they are not citizens. The constitution, though, does protect them from discrimination based on race or national origin and from improper treatment by the government.
___
Associated Press reporters Acacia Coronado and David Fischer in Miami contributed to this report.
For those who say this guy is worse than FF, well I think you’re all correct.
I'm personally at a loss to what Lindsay Graham is doing. In what world does solidifying the GOP as the pro-abortion party in 2022 read as a good messaging strategy?
It pretty clear to me.
if it’s one issue and people can address it as one issue people are overwhelmingly pro choice (look at Kansas)
when it’s combined into a platform it keeps the conservative coalition together. One issue voters on guns, taxes, abortion, white nationalism, immigration, critical race theory. If any of those other groups aren’t pro life it doesn’t matter to them and they still vote GOP as their primary issue is being addressed. They still need the pro life vote
abortion is a losing issue as a single issue. They absolutely aren’t making that mistake again if they can avoid it. Keeping it a legislative issue it’s much harder to prevent it from becoming law
in a 50/50 state with all democrats being pro choice it’s way harder to expect a pro choice Republican to actually vote for a democrat. In Kansas which is far more conservative, none of the Republican voters had to vote for an actual democrat, they voted on their position on abortion only. They will still continue to overwhelmingly vote for Republican candidates who happen to be pro life though
Is Graham not making this a referendum on pro/anti-choice by pushing a bill to restrict and unilaterally stating that this is what the GOP will do if in power after the midterm elections? As you said - in that scenario, people vote overwhelmingly pro-choice, so I'm still not seeing the logic.
On the long-term voter count impact, I hear you - anti-choice is one more cohort of single-issue voters for the GOP to have. That said, there's already an almost implicit understanding that the GOP will be the most anti-choice decision you can make. In addition, to gain that cohort will likely cost any/all pro-choice voters, and likely activate additional pro-choice voters. Just one guy's opinion - I don't think the math will show this to be a net gain in states where it matters (purple states) when all is said and done.
I don’t think so.
no pro choice republican I know is voting democratic reguardless of how crazy republicans get on the anti abortion issues. They aren’t defined by being pro choice, they are defined by being republicans. Republicans vote for republicans not democrats.
Not making it an issue and the pro life voters may stay home though as that’s their issue and the only reason they vote. The rest of the party has their own priorities and as long as that gets addressed they are fine
In my opinion it was the only play to make
log cabin republicans still vote for republicans and the party is against everything they stand for. I guess tax policy is more important than the fact the GOP hates gay people? I see no difference in pro choice republicans. They might disagree but that isn’t changing their vote.
they aren’t deciding the abortion issue in a vacuum as they did in Kansas. That’s the point. They are weighing the abortion issue in the context of having to actively support the Democratic Party as the alternative which isn’t happening. It’s entirely different and people in Kansas did not have to do that
Americans are both pro gay rights and pro choice pretty overwhelmingly. You wouldn’t know it based on who they choose to vote for though or the laws being passed by the people they elect. That’s the disconnect
Which makes them all hypocrites
Coming from a very liberal person, I wouldn’t go so far as saying they are hypocrites. There are some democratic positions I don’t agree with. I however am not voting Republican no matter what as that one or two issues isn’t worth everything else that goes along with being republican. I think it’s the same for a lot of republicans viewing voting for democrats
I think it’s more nuanced in that if it’s not a major issue to you then you can overlook it. I think that’s what’s going on. Unless you are a culture warrior Republican that’s really not where most of your conservatives are. Both moderate republicans and libertarian leaning republicans as they especially don’t want the government involved in any of that at all
all I would really want is in a perfect world for some of these issues where there is actual consensus among the people but not within the two political parties to be handled via ballot initiative as one issue. Gun control, abortion, gay rights. It’s not as divided among the population as it appears. All have sufficiently more than majority support
I'm personally at a loss to what Lindsay Graham is doing. In what world does solidifying the GOP as the pro-abortion party in 2022 read as a good messaging strategy?
It pretty clear to me.
if it’s one issue and people can address it as one issue people are overwhelmingly pro choice (look at Kansas)
when it’s combined into a platform it keeps the conservative coalition together. One issue voters on guns, taxes, abortion, white nationalism, immigration, critical race theory. If any of those other groups aren’t pro life it doesn’t matter to them and they still vote GOP as their primary issue is being addressed. They still need the pro life vote
abortion is a losing issue as a single issue. They absolutely aren’t making that mistake again if they can avoid it. Keeping it a legislative issue it’s much harder to prevent it from becoming law
in a 50/50 state with all democrats being pro choice it’s way harder to expect a pro choice Republican to actually vote for a democrat. In Kansas which is far more conservative, none of the Republican voters had to vote for an actual democrat, they voted on their position on abortion only. They will still continue to overwhelmingly vote for Republican candidates who happen to be pro life though
Is Graham not making this a referendum on pro/anti-choice by pushing a bill to restrict and unilaterally stating that this is what the GOP will do if in power after the midterm elections? As you said - in that scenario, people vote overwhelmingly pro-choice, so I'm still not seeing the logic.
On the long-term voter count impact, I hear you - anti-choice is one more cohort of single-issue voters for the GOP to have. That said, there's already an almost implicit understanding that the GOP will be the most anti-choice decision you can make. In addition, to gain that cohort will likely cost any/all pro-choice voters, and likely activate additional pro-choice voters. Just one guy's opinion - I don't think the math will show this to be a net gain in states where it matters (purple states) when all is said and done.
I don’t think so.
no pro choice republican I know is voting democratic reguardless of how crazy republicans get on the anti abortion issues. They aren’t defined by being pro choice, they are defined by being republicans. Republicans vote for republicans not democrats.
Not making it an issue and the pro life voters may stay home though as that’s their issue and the only reason they vote. The rest of the party has their own priorities and as long as that gets addressed they are fine
In my opinion it was the only play to make
log cabin republicans still vote for republicans and the party is against everything they stand for. I guess tax policy is more important than the fact the GOP hates gay people? I see no difference in pro choice republicans. They might disagree but that isn’t changing their vote.
they aren’t deciding the abortion issue in a vacuum as they did in Kansas. That’s the point. They are weighing the abortion issue in the context of having to actively support the Democratic Party as the alternative which isn’t happening. It’s entirely different and people in Kansas did not have to do that
Americans are both pro gay rights and pro choice pretty overwhelmingly. You wouldn’t know it based on who they choose to vote for though or the laws being passed by the people they elect. That’s the disconnect
Which makes them all hypocrites
Coming from a very liberal person, I wouldn’t go so far as saying they are hypocrites. There are some democratic positions I don’t agree with. I however am not voting Republican no matter what. I think it’s the same for a lot of republicans
I think it’s more nuanced in that if it’s not a major issue to you then you can overlook it. I think that’s what’s going on. Unless you are a culture warrior Republican that’s really not where most of your conservatives are. Both moderate republicans and libertarian leaning republicans as they especially don’t want the government involved in any of that at all
I usually agree with you all the time, but I believe when it’s time to push the button, blacken the circle, only democrats vote based on what’s right and I don’t think republicans really give a crap about anything but the party.
Texas sheriff investigating flights to Martha's Vineyard
By PAUL J. WEBER
Today
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A Texas sheriff on Monday opened an investigation into two flights of migrants sent to Martha's Vineyard by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, but did not say what laws may have been broken in putting 48 Venezuelans on private planes last week from San Antonio.
Bexar County Sheriff Javier Salazar, an elected Democrat, railed against the flights that took off in his city as political posturing. But he said investigators had so far only spoken to attorneys representing some of the migrants and did not name any potential suspects who might face charges.
He also did not mention DeSantis in a news conference that appeared to mark the first time a law enforcement official has said they would look into the flights.
“I believe there is some criminal activity involved here,” Salazar said. “But at present we are trying to keep an open mind and we are going to investigate to find out what exact laws were broken if that does turn out to be the case.”
DeSantis' office responded with a statement that said the migrants had been given more options to succeed in Massachusetts.
“Immigrants have been more than willing to leave Bexar County after being abandoned, homeless, and ‘left to fend for themselves,'” DeSantis spokesperson Taryn Fenske said. “Florida gave them an opportunity to seek greener pastures in a sanctuary jurisdiction that offered greater resources for them, as we expected.”
The Venezuelan migrants who were flown to the wealthy Massachusetts island from San Antonio on Wednesday said they were told they were going to Boston. Julio Henriquez, an attorney who met with several migrants, said they “had no idea of where they were going or where they were.”
He said a Latina woman approached migrants at a city-run shelter in San Antonio and put them up at a nearby La Quinta Inn, where she visited daily with food and gift cards. She promised jobs and three months of housing in Washington, New York, Philadelphia and Boston, according to Henriquez.
Salazar said the migrants had been “preyed upon” and “hoodwinked.”
Some Democrats have urged the Justice Department to investigate the flights, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom and U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro, whose district includes San Antonio.
A federal investigation might be complicated, however. It’s not clear whether anyone boarded buses or planes unwillingly, or that their civil rights were violated. The rights of asylum seekers arriving to the U.S. are also more limited because they are not citizens. The constitution, though, does protect them from discrimination based on race or national origin and from improper treatment by the government.
___
Associated Press reporters Acacia Coronado and David Fischer in Miami contributed to this report.
The statement from Desantis’ office is the exact type of heroism to which these dickbags aspire. Perfectly sums up the GOP. Bitch and bitch, let other do the work, then swoop in and claim the credit.
I'm personally at a loss to what Lindsay Graham is doing. In what world does solidifying the GOP as the pro-abortion party in 2022 read as a good messaging strategy?
It pretty clear to me.
if it’s one issue and people can address it as one issue people are overwhelmingly pro choice (look at Kansas)
when it’s combined into a platform it keeps the conservative coalition together. One issue voters on guns, taxes, abortion, white nationalism, immigration, critical race theory. If any of those other groups aren’t pro life it doesn’t matter to them and they still vote GOP as their primary issue is being addressed. They still need the pro life vote
abortion is a losing issue as a single issue. They absolutely aren’t making that mistake again if they can avoid it. Keeping it a legislative issue it’s much harder to prevent it from becoming law
in a 50/50 state with all democrats being pro choice it’s way harder to expect a pro choice Republican to actually vote for a democrat. In Kansas which is far more conservative, none of the Republican voters had to vote for an actual democrat, they voted on their position on abortion only. They will still continue to overwhelmingly vote for Republican candidates who happen to be pro life though
Is Graham not making this a referendum on pro/anti-choice by pushing a bill to restrict and unilaterally stating that this is what the GOP will do if in power after the midterm elections? As you said - in that scenario, people vote overwhelmingly pro-choice, so I'm still not seeing the logic.
On the long-term voter count impact, I hear you - anti-choice is one more cohort of single-issue voters for the GOP to have. That said, there's already an almost implicit understanding that the GOP will be the most anti-choice decision you can make. In addition, to gain that cohort will likely cost any/all pro-choice voters, and likely activate additional pro-choice voters. Just one guy's opinion - I don't think the math will show this to be a net gain in states where it matters (purple states) when all is said and done.
I don’t think so.
no pro choice republican I know is voting democratic reguardless of how crazy republicans get on the anti abortion issues. They aren’t defined by being pro choice, they are defined by being republicans. Republicans vote for republicans not democrats.
Not making it an issue and the pro life voters may stay home though as that’s their issue and the only reason they vote. The rest of the party has their own priorities and as long as that gets addressed they are fine
In my opinion it was the only play to make
log cabin republicans still vote for republicans and the party is against everything they stand for. I guess tax policy is more important than the fact the GOP hates gay people? I see no difference in pro choice republicans. They might disagree but that isn’t changing their vote.
they aren’t deciding the abortion issue in a vacuum as they did in Kansas. That’s the point. They are weighing the abortion issue in the context of having to actively support the Democratic Party as the alternative which isn’t happening. It’s entirely different and people in Kansas did not have to do that
Americans are both pro gay rights and pro choice pretty overwhelmingly. You wouldn’t know it based on who they choose to vote for though or the laws being passed by the people they elect. That’s the disconnect
Which makes them all hypocrites
Coming from a very liberal person, I wouldn’t go so far as saying they are hypocrites. There are some democratic positions I don’t agree with. I however am not voting Republican no matter what. I think it’s the same for a lot of republicans
I think it’s more nuanced in that if it’s not a major issue to you then you can overlook it. I think that’s what’s going on. Unless you are a culture warrior Republican that’s really not where most of your conservatives are. Both moderate republicans and libertarian leaning republicans as they especially don’t want the government involved in any of that at all
I usually agree with you all the time, but I believe when it’s time to push the button, blacken the circle, only democrats vote based on what’s right and I don’t think republicans really give a crap about anything but the party.
They vote for what they think is right, same as the Democrats vote for what they think is right.
I'm personally at a loss to what Lindsay Graham is doing. In what world does solidifying the GOP as the pro-abortion party in 2022 read as a good messaging strategy?
It pretty clear to me.
if it’s one issue and people can address it as one issue people are overwhelmingly pro choice (look at Kansas)
when it’s combined into a platform it keeps the conservative coalition together. One issue voters on guns, taxes, abortion, white nationalism, immigration, critical race theory. If any of those other groups aren’t pro life it doesn’t matter to them and they still vote GOP as their primary issue is being addressed. They still need the pro life vote
abortion is a losing issue as a single issue. They absolutely aren’t making that mistake again if they can avoid it. Keeping it a legislative issue it’s much harder to prevent it from becoming law
in a 50/50 state with all democrats being pro choice it’s way harder to expect a pro choice Republican to actually vote for a democrat. In Kansas which is far more conservative, none of the Republican voters had to vote for an actual democrat, they voted on their position on abortion only. They will still continue to overwhelmingly vote for Republican candidates who happen to be pro life though
Is Graham not making this a referendum on pro/anti-choice by pushing a bill to restrict and unilaterally stating that this is what the GOP will do if in power after the midterm elections? As you said - in that scenario, people vote overwhelmingly pro-choice, so I'm still not seeing the logic.
On the long-term voter count impact, I hear you - anti-choice is one more cohort of single-issue voters for the GOP to have. That said, there's already an almost implicit understanding that the GOP will be the most anti-choice decision you can make. In addition, to gain that cohort will likely cost any/all pro-choice voters, and likely activate additional pro-choice voters. Just one guy's opinion - I don't think the math will show this to be a net gain in states where it matters (purple states) when all is said and done.
I don’t think so.
no pro choice republican I know is voting democratic reguardless of how crazy republicans get on the anti abortion issues. They aren’t defined by being pro choice, they are defined by being republicans. Republicans vote for republicans not democrats.
Not making it an issue and the pro life voters may stay home though as that’s their issue and the only reason they vote. The rest of the party has their own priorities and as long as that gets addressed they are fine
In my opinion it was the only play to make
log cabin republicans still vote for republicans and the party is against everything they stand for. I guess tax policy is more important than the fact the GOP hates gay people? I see no difference in pro choice republicans. They might disagree but that isn’t changing their vote.
they aren’t deciding the abortion issue in a vacuum as they did in Kansas. That’s the point. They are weighing the abortion issue in the context of having to actively support the Democratic Party as the alternative which isn’t happening. It’s entirely different and people in Kansas did not have to do that
Americans are both pro gay rights and pro choice pretty overwhelmingly. You wouldn’t know it based on who they choose to vote for though or the laws being passed by the people they elect. That’s the disconnect
Which makes them all hypocrites
Coming from a very liberal person, I wouldn’t go so far as saying they are hypocrites. There are some democratic positions I don’t agree with. I however am not voting Republican no matter what. I think it’s the same for a lot of republicans
I think it’s more nuanced in that if it’s not a major issue to you then you can overlook it. I think that’s what’s going on. Unless you are a culture warrior Republican that’s really not where most of your conservatives are. Both moderate republicans and libertarian leaning republicans as they especially don’t want the government involved in any of that at all
I usually agree with you all the time, but I believe when it’s time to push the button, blacken the circle, only democrats vote based on what’s right and I don’t think republicans really give a crap about anything but the party.
They vote for what they think is right, same as the Democrats vote for what they think is right.
so the cruelty is actually what they think is right then.
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
I'm personally at a loss to what Lindsay Graham is doing. In what world does solidifying the GOP as the pro-abortion party in 2022 read as a good messaging strategy?
It pretty clear to me.
if it’s one issue and people can address it as one issue people are overwhelmingly pro choice (look at Kansas)
when it’s combined into a platform it keeps the conservative coalition together. One issue voters on guns, taxes, abortion, white nationalism, immigration, critical race theory. If any of those other groups aren’t pro life it doesn’t matter to them and they still vote GOP as their primary issue is being addressed. They still need the pro life vote
abortion is a losing issue as a single issue. They absolutely aren’t making that mistake again if they can avoid it. Keeping it a legislative issue it’s much harder to prevent it from becoming law
in a 50/50 state with all democrats being pro choice it’s way harder to expect a pro choice Republican to actually vote for a democrat. In Kansas which is far more conservative, none of the Republican voters had to vote for an actual democrat, they voted on their position on abortion only. They will still continue to overwhelmingly vote for Republican candidates who happen to be pro life though
Is Graham not making this a referendum on pro/anti-choice by pushing a bill to restrict and unilaterally stating that this is what the GOP will do if in power after the midterm elections? As you said - in that scenario, people vote overwhelmingly pro-choice, so I'm still not seeing the logic.
On the long-term voter count impact, I hear you - anti-choice is one more cohort of single-issue voters for the GOP to have. That said, there's already an almost implicit understanding that the GOP will be the most anti-choice decision you can make. In addition, to gain that cohort will likely cost any/all pro-choice voters, and likely activate additional pro-choice voters. Just one guy's opinion - I don't think the math will show this to be a net gain in states where it matters (purple states) when all is said and done.
I don’t think so.
no pro choice republican I know is voting democratic reguardless of how crazy republicans get on the anti abortion issues. They aren’t defined by being pro choice, they are defined by being republicans. Republicans vote for republicans not democrats.
Not making it an issue and the pro life voters may stay home though as that’s their issue and the only reason they vote. The rest of the party has their own priorities and as long as that gets addressed they are fine
In my opinion it was the only play to make
log cabin republicans still vote for republicans and the party is against everything they stand for. I guess tax policy is more important than the fact the GOP hates gay people? I see no difference in pro choice republicans. They might disagree but that isn’t changing their vote.
they aren’t deciding the abortion issue in a vacuum as they did in Kansas. That’s the point. They are weighing the abortion issue in the context of having to actively support the Democratic Party as the alternative which isn’t happening. It’s entirely different and people in Kansas did not have to do that
Americans are both pro gay rights and pro choice pretty overwhelmingly. You wouldn’t know it based on who they choose to vote for though or the laws being passed by the people they elect. That’s the disconnect
Which makes them all hypocrites
Coming from a very liberal person, I wouldn’t go so far as saying they are hypocrites. There are some democratic positions I don’t agree with. I however am not voting Republican no matter what. I think it’s the same for a lot of republicans
I think it’s more nuanced in that if it’s not a major issue to you then you can overlook it. I think that’s what’s going on. Unless you are a culture warrior Republican that’s really not where most of your conservatives are. Both moderate republicans and libertarian leaning republicans as they especially don’t want the government involved in any of that at all
I usually agree with you all the time, but I believe when it’s time to push the button, blacken the circle, only democrats vote based on what’s right and I don’t think republicans really give a crap about anything but the party.
They vote for what they think is right, same as the Democrats vote for what they think is right.
so the cruelty is actually what they think is right then.
Where I grew up ranching and farming families that I knew I don’t believe cared one bit about abortion or who marries who on the whole. They weren’t particularly religious either. They voted Republican because they think the GOP passes legislation that benefits them more than democrats
everyone is overestimating the level of passion a pro choice Republican has on that issue. They may be pro choice but it’s an abstract issue unless your daughter is pregnant. Other issues affect their livelihood and they think republicans are on their side. Pocketbook issues win the majority of the time.
I assume it’s the same if you are pro choice but are afraid an illegal immigrant will take your job. You care about being pro choice less and vote immigration policy
if it’s your primary issue you wouldn’t be a republican to begin with
Post edited by Cropduster-80 on
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,015
Ohio GOP House candidate has misrepresented military service
By BRIAN SLODYSKO and JAMES LAPORTA
Today
WASHINGTON (AP) — Campaigning for a northwestern Ohio congressional seat, Republican J.R. Majewski presents himself as an Air Force combat veteran who deployed to Afghanistan after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, once describing “tough” conditions including a lack of running water that forced him to go more than 40 days without a shower.
Military documents obtained by The Associated Press through a public records request tell a different story.
They indicate Majewski never deployed to Afghanistan but instead completed a six-month stint helping to load planes at an air base in Qatar, a longtime U.S. ally that is a safe distance from the fighting.
Majewski's account of his time in the military is just one aspect of his biography that is suspect. His post-military career has been defined by exaggerations, conspiracy theories, talk of violent action against the U.S. government and occasional financial duress.
Still, thanks to an unflinching allegiance to former President Donald Trump — Majewski once painted a massive Trump mural on his lawn — he also stands a chance of defeating longtime Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur in a district recently redrawn to favor Republicans.
Majewski is among a cluster of GOP candidates, most running for office for the first time, whose unvarnished life stories and hard-right politics could diminish the chances of a Republican “red wave” on Election Day in November. He is also a vivid representation of a new breed of politicians who reject facts as they try to emulate Trump.
“It bothers me when people trade on their military service to get elected to office when what they are doing is misleading the people they want to vote for them,” Don Christensen, a retired colonel and former chief prosecutor for the Air Force, said of Majewski. “Veterans have done so much for this country and when you claim to have done what your brothers and sisters in arms actually did to build up your reputation, it is a disservice.”
Majewski's campaign declined to make him available for an interview and, in a lengthy statement issued to the AP, did not directly address questions about his claim of deploying to Afghanistan. A spokeswoman declined to provide additional comment when the AP followed up with additional questions.
“I am proud to have served my country,” Majewski said in the statement. “My accomplishments and record are under attack, meanwhile, career politician Marcy Kaptur has a forty-year record of failure for my Toledo community, which is why I’m running for Congress.”
With no previous political experience, Majewski is perhaps an unlikely person to be the Republican nominee taking on Kaptur, who has represented the Toledo area since 1983. But two state legislators who were also on the ballot in the August GOP primary split the establishment vote. That cleared a path for Majewski, who previously worked in the nuclear power industry and dabbled in politics as a pro-Trump hip-hop performer and promoter of the QAnon conspiracy theory. He was also at the U.S. Capitol during the insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021.
Throughout his campaign Majewski has offered his Air Force service as a valuable credential. The tagline “veteran for Congress” appears on campaign merchandise. He ran a Facebook ad promoting himself as “combat veteran.” And in a campaign video released this year, Majewski marauds through a vacant factory with a rifle while pledging to restore an America that is “independent and strong like the country I fought for.”
More recently, the House Republican campaign committee released a biography that describes Majewski as a veteran whose “squadron was one of the first on the ground in Afghanistan after 9/11.” A campaign ad posted online Tuesday by Majewski supporters flashed the words “Afghanistan War Veteran” across the screen alongside a picture of a younger Majewski in his dress uniform.
He's been far less forthcoming when asked about the specifics of his service.
“I don’t like talking about my military experience,” he said in a 2021 interview on the One American Podcast after volunteering that he served one tour of duty in Afghanistan. “It was a tough time in life. You know, the military wasn’t easy.”
A review of his service records, which the AP obtained from the National Archives through a public records request, as well as an accounting provided by the Air Force, offers a possible explanation for his hesitancy.
Rather than deploying to Afghanistan, as he has claimed, the records state that Majewski was based at Kadena Air Base in Japan for much of his active-duty service. He later deployed for six months to Qatar in May 2002, where he helped load and unload planes while serving as a "passenger operations specialist,” the records show.
While based in Qatar, Majewski would land at other air bases to transfer military passengers, medics, supplies, his campaign said. The campaign did not answer a direct question about whether he was ever in Afghanistan.
Experts argue Majewski’s description of himself as a “combat veteran” is also misleading.
The term can evoke images of soldiers storming a beachhead or finding refuge during a firefight. But under the laws and regulations of the U.S. government, facing live fire has little to do with someone earning the title.
During the Persian Gulf War, then-President George H.W. Bush designated, for the first time, countries used as combat support areas as combat zones despite the low-risk of American service members ever facing hostilities. That helped veterans receive a favorable tax status. Qatar, which is now home to the largest U.S. air base in the Middle East, was among the countries that received the designation under Bush's executive order — a status that remains in effect today.
Regardless, it rankles some when those seeking office offer their status as a combat veteran as a credential to voters without explaining that it does not mean that they came under hostile fire.
“As somebody who was in Qatar, I do not consider myself a combat veteran,” said Christensen, the retired Air Force colonel who now runs Protect Our Defenders, a military watchdog organization. “I think that would be offensive to those who were actually engaged in combat and Iraq and Afghanistan.”
Majewski's campaign said that he calls himself a combat veteran because the area he deployed to — Qatar — is considered a combat zone.
Majewski also lacks many of the medals that are typically awarded to those who served in Afghanistan.
Though he once said that he went more than 40 days without a shower during his time in the landlocked country, he does not have an Afghanistan campaign medal, which was issued to those who served “30 consecutive days or 60 nonconsecutive days" in the country.
He also did not receive a Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, which was issued to service members before the creation of the Afghanistan campaign medal if they deployed overseas in “direct service to the War on Terror.”
Matthew Borie, an Air Force veteran who worked in intelligence and reviewed Majewski’s records at AP’s request, said it's “odd” that Majewski lacks many of the “medals you would expect to see for someone who deployed to Afghanistan."
There’s also the matter of Majewski’s final rank and reenlistment code when he left active duty after four years of service.
Most leave the service after four years having received several promotions that are generally awarded for time served. Majewski exited at a rank that was one notch above where he started. His enlistment code also indicated that he could not sign up with the Air Force again.
Majewski's campaign said he received what's called a nonjudicial punishment in 2001 after getting into a "brawl" in his dormitory, which resulted in a demotion. Nonjudicial punishments are designed to hold service members accountable for bad behavior that does not rise to the level of a court-martial.
Majewski's resume exaggeration isn't limited to his military service, reverberating throughout his professional life, as well as a nascent political career that took shape in an online world of conspiracy theories.
Since gaining traction in his campaign for Congress, Majewski has denied that he is a follower of the QAnon conspiracy theory while playing down his participation in the Capitol riot.
The baseless and apocalyptic QAnon belief is based on cryptic online postings by the anonymous “Q,” who is purportedly a government insider. It posits that Trump is fighting entrenched enemies in the government and also involves satanism and child sex trafficking.
“Let me be clear, I denounce QAnon. I do not support Q, and I do not subscribe to their conspiracy theories," Majewski said in his statement to the AP.
But in the past Majewski repeatedly posted QAnon references and memes to social media, wore a QAnon shirt during a TV interview and has described Zak Paine, a QAnon influencer and online personality who goes by the nom de guerre Redpill78, as a “good friend.”
During a February 2021 appearance on a YouTube stream, Majewski stated, “I believe in everything that’s been put out from Q,” while characterizing the false posts as “military-level intelligence, in my opinion.” He also posted, to the right-wing social media platform Parler, a photo of the “Trump 2020” mural he painted on his lawn that was modified to change the zeros into “Q's,” as first reported by CNN.
Then there's Majewski's participation in the Jan. 6 insurrection. Majewski has said that he raised about $25,000 to help dozens of people attend the “Stop the Steal” rally that preceded the attack on the Capitol. He also traveled to the event with his friend Paine, the QAnon influencer, and the two later appeared in social media postings near the Capitol.
Majewski acknowledged he was outside the Capitol, but denies entering the building. Still, he lamented the decision on a QAnon livestream a week after the attack, stating that he was “pissed off at myself” for not going into the building.
“It was a struggle, because I really wanted to go in,” Majewski said on the livestream, which was first unearthed by the liberal group Media Matters.
Majewski has not been charged in connection with the attack. But he has falsely stated that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump and said that the insurrection “felt like a setup” by police who were targeting Trump supporters.
In his statement, Majewski said, “I deeply regret being at the Capitol that day" and “did not break the law," while calling for those who did to be “punished to the fullest extent of the law.”
The mischaracterizations extend to his professional career, in which he has repeatedly described himself as an “executive in the nuclear power industry,” including in a campaign ad last spring.
But a review of his now-deleted resume on the website LinkedIn and a survey of his former employers do not support the claim.
He most recently worked for Holtec International, a Florida-based energy conglomerate that specializes in handling spent nuclear fuel. But he is not listed among the executives and members of the corporate leadership teams in current or archived versions of the company's website.
A spokesman confirmed Majewski was a former Holtec employee, but declined to offer details on his position or role, which Majewski's LinkedIn page described as “senior director, client relations.”
Majewski's campaign declined to address his claim of being an executive, but said he participated in weekly conference calls with executives.
Majewski also described himself on LinkedIn as “project manager - senior consultant” for First Energy, an Ohio based power company, a position that he stated he held since shortly after leaving the military. The company, Majewski explained in a biography posted to his website, quickly recognized him for his “intellect and leadership capabilities”
Yet records from his 2009 bankruptcy raise questions about his seniority. They show he was an “outage manager” who earned about $51,000 a year. In the bankruptcy, Majewski and his wife gave up their home, two cars and a Jet Ski to settle the case, court records show.
Still, in a nationalized political environment, some Republicans suggest none of this will matter to voters.
“At the end of the day, this will be a question of whether they want Nancy Pelosi leading the House or Kevin McCarthy,” said Tom Davis, a former congressman who led the House Republican campaign arm during George W. Bush's presidency. “These elections have become less about the person. I wouldn't say candidates don’t matter, but they don’t matter like they used to."
___
LaPorta reported from Wilmington, North Carolina. AP investigative researcher Randy Herschaft in New York contributed to this report.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,015
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,015
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
How Kevin McCarthy’s political machine worked to sway the GOP field By Michael Scherer, Josh Dawsey, Isaac Arnsdorf and Marianna Sotomayor September 27, 2022 at 6:00 ET Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.) made a name for himself as a firebrand social media phenomenon who delighted in trolling the left, famously boasting to colleagues that he had built his House office by focusing on communications not legislation. But the strategy made him vulnerable to forces within his own party that helped end his time in office. Top allies of Kevin McCarthy, the House Republican leader, worked this spring to deny Cawthorn a second term in office, after the Donald Trump-endorsed lawmaker made controversial comments about cocaine use and sex parties in Washington that led McCarthy to announce he had “lost my trust,” according to multiple Republicans briefed on the effort, which has not been previously reported. GOP lobbyist Jeff Miller, one of McCarthy’s closest friends and biggest fundraisers, and Brian O. Walsh, a Republican strategist who works for multiple McCarthy-backed groups, were both involved in an independent effort to oppose Cawthorn as part of a broader project to create a more functioning GOP caucus next year, said the Republicans, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations. Targeting Cawthorn was part of a larger behind-the-scenes effort by top GOP donors and senior strategists to purge the influence of Republican factions that seek disruption and grandstanding, often at the expense of their GOP colleagues. The political machine around McCarthy has spent millions of dollars this year in a sometimes secretive effort to systematically weed out GOP candidates who could either cause McCarthy trouble if he becomes House speaker or jeopardize GOP victories in districts where a more moderate candidate might have a better chance at winning.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,015
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
OpinionJust how racist is the MAGA movement? This survey measures it.
It has long been understood that the MAGA movement is heavily dependent on White grievance and straight-up racism. (Hence Donald Trump’s refusal to disavow racist groups and his statement that there were “very fine people on both sides” in the violent clashes at the white-supremacist rally in Charlottesville.)
Now, we have numbers to prove it.
The connection between racism and the right-wing movement is apparent in a new poll from the Public Religion Research Institute. The survey asked respondents about 11 statements designed to probe views on racism. For example: “White Americans today are not responsible for discrimination against Black people in the past.” The pollsters then used their answers to quantify a “structural racism index,” which provides a general score from zero to 1 measuring a person’s attitudes on “white supremacy and racial inequality, the impact of discrimination on African American economic mobility, the treatment of African Americans in the criminal justice system, general perceptions of race, and whether racism is still significant problem today.” Higher scores indicate a more receptive attitude to racist beliefs.
The results shouldn’t surprise anyone paying attention to the MAGA crowd’s rhetoric and veneration of the Confederacy. “Among all Americans, the median value on the structural racism index is 0.45, near the center of the scale,” the poll found. “The median score on the structural racism index for Republicans is 0.67, compared with 0.45 for independents and 0.27 for Democrats.” Put differently, Republicans are much more likely to buy into the notion that Whites are victims.
The poll also found that the religious group that makes up the core of today’s GOP and MAGA movement has the highest structural racism measure among the demographics it surveyed: “White evangelical Protestants have the highest median score, at 0.64, while Latter-day Saints, white Catholics, and white mainline Protestants each have a median of 0.55. By contrast, religiously unaffiliated white Americans score 0.33.” This is true even though Whites report far less discrimination toward them than racial minorities do.
The survey also captured just how popular the “Lost Cause” to rewrite the history of the Civil War and downplay or ignore the evil of slavery is on the right: “Republicans overwhelmingly back efforts to preserve the legacy of the Confederacy (85%), compared with less than half of independents (46%) and only one in four Democrats (26%). The contrast between white Republicans and white Democrats is stark. Nearly nine in 10 white Republicans (87%), compared with 23% of white Democrats, support efforts to preserve the legacy of the Confederacy.”
Americans who fully support reforming Confederate monuments have a much lower structural racism index score, while those who oppose it have a much higher score. The same is true when it comes to renaming schools honoring individuals who supported slavery and racial discrimination or changing racist mascots.
Those who want to keep Confederate monuments and offensive mascots in place might deny that their views have anything to do bigotry, but then again, they often deny the legacy of racism and paint Whites as victims, too. In general, MAGA forces have one goal when they amplify “replacement theory” or fuss over corporations promoting inclusivity: to maximize White anger and resentment.
Robert P. Jones, who leads PRRI, tells me, “While this result may seem surprising or even shocking to many White Christians, it is because we do not know our own history. If we take a clear-eyed look at our history, we see a widespread, centuries-long Christian defense of white supremacy.” He adds, “For example, every major Protestant Christian denomination split over the issue of slavery in the Civil War, with Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Baptists in the South all breaking fellowship with their Northern brethren.” Given that history, Jones says, “it’s hardly a surprise that a denial of systemic racism is a defining feature of White evangelicalism today.”
The PRRI poll shows the MAGA movement has done a solid job convincing the core of the GOP base that they are victims. And let’s be clear: An aggrieved electoral minority that believes it has been victimized and is ready to deploy violence is a serious threat to an inclusive democracy.
Just how racist is the MAGA movement? This survey measures it.
It has long been understood that the MAGA movement is heavily dependent on White grievance and straight-up racism. (Hence Donald Trump’s refusal to disavow racist groups and his statement that there were “very fine people on both sides” in the violent clashes at the white-supremacist rally in Charlottesville.)
Now, we have numbers to prove it.
The connection between racism and the right-wing movement is apparent in a new poll from the Public Religion Research Institute. The survey asked respondents about 11 statements designed to probe views on racism. For example: “White Americans today are not responsible for discrimination against Black people in the past.” The pollsters then used their answers to quantify a “structural racism index,” which provides a general score from zero to 1 measuring a person’s attitudes on “white supremacy and racial inequality, the impact of discrimination on African American economic mobility, the treatment of African Americans in the criminal justice system, general perceptions of race, and whether racism is still significant problem today.” Higher scores indicate a more receptive attitude to racist beliefs.
The results shouldn’t surprise anyone paying attention to the MAGA crowd’s rhetoric and veneration of the Confederacy. “Among all Americans, the median value on the structural racism index is 0.45, near the center of the scale,” the poll found. “The median score on the structural racism index for Republicans is 0.67, compared with 0.45 for independents and 0.27 for Democrats.” Put differently, Republicans are much more likely to buy into the notion that Whites are victims.
The poll also found that the religious group that makes up the core of today’s GOP and MAGA movement has the highest structural racism measure among the demographics it surveyed: “White evangelical Protestants have the highest median score, at 0.64, while Latter-day Saints, white Catholics, and white mainline Protestants each have a median of 0.55. By contrast, religiously unaffiliated white Americans score 0.33.” This is true even though Whites report far less discrimination toward them than racial minorities do.
The survey also captured just how popular the “Lost Cause” to rewrite the history of the Civil War and downplay or ignore the evil of slavery is on the right: “Republicans overwhelmingly back efforts to preserve the legacy of the Confederacy (85%), compared with less than half of independents (46%) and only one in four Democrats (26%). The contrast between white Republicans and white Democrats is stark. Nearly nine in 10 white Republicans (87%), compared with 23% of white Democrats, support efforts to preserve the legacy of the Confederacy.”
Americans who fully support reforming Confederate monuments have a much lower structural racism index score, while those who oppose it have a much higher score. The same is true when it comes to renaming schools honoring individuals who supported slavery and racial discrimination or changing racist mascots.
Those who want to keep Confederate monuments and offensive mascots in place might deny that their views have anything to do bigotry, but then again, they often deny the legacy of racism and paint Whites as victims, too. In general, MAGA forces have one goal when they amplify “replacement theory” or fuss over corporations promoting inclusivity: to maximize White anger and resentment.
Robert P. Jones, who leads PRRI, tells me, “While this result may seem surprising or even shocking to many White Christians, it is because we do not know our own history. If we take a clear-eyed look at our history, we see a widespread, centuries-long Christian defense of white supremacy.” He adds, “For example, every major Protestant Christian denomination split over the issue of slavery in the Civil War, with Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Baptists in the South all breaking fellowship with their Northern brethren.” Given that history, Jones says, “it’s hardly a surprise that a denial of systemic racism is a defining feature of White evangelicalism today.”
The PRRI poll shows the MAGA movement has done a solid job convincing the core of the GOP base that they are victims. And let’s be clear: An aggrieved electoral minority that believes it has been victimized and is ready to deploy violence is a serious threat to an inclusive democracy.
I read someone say this in an op-ed here in NY. I forget which newspaper. I'll paraphrase.
"the middle income brackets have had to pay out more and more in taxes to help the underprivileged. There is nothing wrong with that but when is that going to help us the middle class improve our lives further? Paying out and no return isn't fair."
This is a common view I would say among the MAGA groups. Fix this way of thinking and it would get better I would think.
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,361
edited September 2022
^
How do you do that, though, when those people refuse to acknowledge that their party is the one enriching the top 1% at their expense? That is hurting them much more than what you're talking about.
How do you do that, though, when those people refuse to acknowledge that their party is the one enriching the top 1% at their expense? That is hurting them much more than what you're talking about.
So this is here in NY though. We are run mostly by democrats so they have a leg to stand on there. In the article the person sighted improvements made in areas wheras in his neighborhood they are overlooked. I can't argue for the people say in Montana, but for this person, he lives here.
I wish I had the article to post.
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,361
How do you do that, though, when those people refuse to acknowledge that their party is the one enriching the top 1% at their expense? That is hurting them much more than what you're talking about.
So this is here in NY though. We are run mostly by democrats so they have a leg to stand on there. In the article the person sighted improvements made in areas wheras in his neighborhood they are overlooked. I can't argue for the people say in Montana, but for this person, he lives here.
I wish I had the article to post.
I think what you are describing is a common theme for republicans all over the country though.
How do you do that, though, when those people refuse to acknowledge that their party is the one enriching the top 1% at their expense? That is hurting them much more than what you're talking about.
So this is here in NY though. We are run mostly by democrats so they have a leg to stand on there. In the article the person sighted improvements made in areas wheras in his neighborhood they are overlooked. I can't argue for the people say in Montana, but for this person, he lives here.
I wish I had the article to post.
I think what you are describing is a common theme for republicans all over the country though.
I can't comment about other places but I see your point. The theme of people being left behind is a common one that I've read.
Just how racist is the MAGA movement? This survey measures it.
It has long been understood that the MAGA movement is heavily dependent on White grievance and straight-up racism. (Hence Donald Trump’s refusal to disavow racist groups and his statement that there were “very fine people on both sides” in the violent clashes at the white-supremacist rally in Charlottesville.)
Now, we have numbers to prove it.
The connection between racism and the right-wing movement is apparent in a new poll from the Public Religion Research Institute. The survey asked respondents about 11 statements designed to probe views on racism. For example: “White Americans today are not responsible for discrimination against Black people in the past.” The pollsters then used their answers to quantify a “structural racism index,” which provides a general score from zero to 1 measuring a person’s attitudes on “white supremacy and racial inequality, the impact of discrimination on African American economic mobility, the treatment of African Americans in the criminal justice system, general perceptions of race, and whether racism is still significant problem today.” Higher scores indicate a more receptive attitude to racist beliefs.
The results shouldn’t surprise anyone paying attention to the MAGA crowd’s rhetoric and veneration of the Confederacy. “Among all Americans, the median value on the structural racism index is 0.45, near the center of the scale,” the poll found. “The median score on the structural racism index for Republicans is 0.67, compared with 0.45 for independents and 0.27 for Democrats.” Put differently, Republicans are much more likely to buy into the notion that Whites are victims.
The poll also found that the religious group that makes up the core of today’s GOP and MAGA movement has the highest structural racism measure among the demographics it surveyed: “White evangelical Protestants have the highest median score, at 0.64, while Latter-day Saints, white Catholics, and white mainline Protestants each have a median of 0.55. By contrast, religiously unaffiliated white Americans score 0.33.” This is true even though Whites report far less discrimination toward them than racial minorities do.
The survey also captured just how popular the “Lost Cause” to rewrite the history of the Civil War and downplay or ignore the evil of slavery is on the right: “Republicans overwhelmingly back efforts to preserve the legacy of the Confederacy (85%), compared with less than half of independents (46%) and only one in four Democrats (26%). The contrast between white Republicans and white Democrats is stark. Nearly nine in 10 white Republicans (87%), compared with 23% of white Democrats, support efforts to preserve the legacy of the Confederacy.”
Americans who fully support reforming Confederate monuments have a much lower structural racism index score, while those who oppose it have a much higher score. The same is true when it comes to renaming schools honoring individuals who supported slavery and racial discrimination or changing racist mascots.
Those who want to keep Confederate monuments and offensive mascots in place might deny that their views have anything to do bigotry, but then again, they often deny the legacy of racism and paint Whites as victims, too. In general, MAGA forces have one goal when they amplify “replacement theory” or fuss over corporations promoting inclusivity: to maximize White anger and resentment.
Robert P. Jones, who leads PRRI, tells me, “While this result may seem surprising or even shocking to many White Christians, it is because we do not know our own history. If we take a clear-eyed look at our history, we see a widespread, centuries-long Christian defense of white supremacy.” He adds, “For example, every major Protestant Christian denomination split over the issue of slavery in the Civil War, with Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Baptists in the South all breaking fellowship with their Northern brethren.” Given that history, Jones says, “it’s hardly a surprise that a denial of systemic racism is a defining feature of White evangelicalism today.”
The PRRI poll shows the MAGA movement has done a solid job convincing the core of the GOP base that they are victims. And let’s be clear: An aggrieved electoral minority that believes it has been victimized and is ready to deploy violence is a serious threat to an inclusive democracy.
I read someone say this in an op-ed here in NY. I forget which newspaper. I'll paraphrase.
"the middle income brackets have had to pay out more and more in taxes to help the underprivileged. There is nothing wrong with that but when is that going to help us the middle class improve our lives further? Paying out and no return isn't fair."
This is a common view I would say among the MAGA groups. Fix this way of thinking and it would get better I would think..
It should say that the middle income brackets pay out more to make up for low corporate tax rates and the tax cuts for the upper income earners, who get the most financial benefit from public infrastructure. Not to mention the wasteful spending on defense contractors. Italics are mine. Weird formatting problem on this post
Just how racist is the MAGA movement? This survey measures it.
It has long been understood that the MAGA movement is heavily dependent on White grievance and straight-up racism. (Hence Donald Trump’s refusal to disavow racist groups and his statement that there were “very fine people on both sides” in the violent clashes at the white-supremacist rally in Charlottesville.)
Now, we have numbers to prove it.
The connection between racism and the right-wing movement is apparent in a new poll from the Public Religion Research Institute. The survey asked respondents about 11 statements designed to probe views on racism. For example: “White Americans today are not responsible for discrimination against Black people in the past.” The pollsters then used their answers to quantify a “structural racism index,” which provides a general score from zero to 1 measuring a person’s attitudes on “white supremacy and racial inequality, the impact of discrimination on African American economic mobility, the treatment of African Americans in the criminal justice system, general perceptions of race, and whether racism is still significant problem today.” Higher scores indicate a more receptive attitude to racist beliefs.
The results shouldn’t surprise anyone paying attention to the MAGA crowd’s rhetoric and veneration of the Confederacy. “Among all Americans, the median value on the structural racism index is 0.45, near the center of the scale,” the poll found. “The median score on the structural racism index for Republicans is 0.67, compared with 0.45 for independents and 0.27 for Democrats.” Put differently, Republicans are much more likely to buy into the notion that Whites are victims.
The poll also found that the religious group that makes up the core of today’s GOP and MAGA movement has the highest structural racism measure among the demographics it surveyed: “White evangelical Protestants have the highest median score, at 0.64, while Latter-day Saints, white Catholics, and white mainline Protestants each have a median of 0.55. By contrast, religiously unaffiliated white Americans score 0.33.” This is true even though Whites report far less discrimination toward them than racial minorities do.
The survey also captured just how popular the “Lost Cause” to rewrite the history of the Civil War and downplay or ignore the evil of slavery is on the right: “Republicans overwhelmingly back efforts to preserve the legacy of the Confederacy (85%), compared with less than half of independents (46%) and only one in four Democrats (26%). The contrast between white Republicans and white Democrats is stark. Nearly nine in 10 white Republicans (87%), compared with 23% of white Democrats, support efforts to preserve the legacy of the Confederacy.”
Americans who fully support reforming Confederate monuments have a much lower structural racism index score, while those who oppose it have a much higher score. The same is true when it comes to renaming schools honoring individuals who supported slavery and racial discrimination or changing racist mascots.
Those who want to keep Confederate monuments and offensive mascots in place might deny that their views have anything to do bigotry, but then again, they often deny the legacy of racism and paint Whites as victims, too. In general, MAGA forces have one goal when they amplify “replacement theory” or fuss over corporations promoting inclusivity: to maximize White anger and resentment.
Robert P. Jones, who leads PRRI, tells me, “While this result may seem surprising or even shocking to many White Christians, it is because we do not know our own history. If we take a clear-eyed look at our history, we see a widespread, centuries-long Christian defense of white supremacy.” He adds, “For example, every major Protestant Christian denomination split over the issue of slavery in the Civil War, with Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Baptists in the South all breaking fellowship with their Northern brethren.” Given that history, Jones says, “it’s hardly a surprise that a denial of systemic racism is a defining feature of White evangelicalism today.”
The PRRI poll shows the MAGA movement has done a solid job convincing the core of the GOP base that they are victims. And let’s be clear: An aggrieved electoral minority that believes it has been victimized and is ready to deploy violence is a serious threat to an inclusive democracy.
I read someone say this in an op-ed here in NY. I forget which newspaper. I'll paraphrase.
"the middle income brackets have had to pay out more and more in taxes to help the underprivileged. There is nothing wrong with that but when is that going to help us the middle class improve our lives further? Paying out and no return isn't fair."
This is a common view I would say among the MAGA groups. Fix this way of thinking and it would get better I would think..
Yeah it should say that the middle income brackets pay out more to make up for low corporate tax rates the tax cuts for the upper income earners, who get the most financial benefit from public infrastructure. Not to mention the wasteful spending on defense contractors.
Yet the MAGAts can't stand the student loan forgiveness....which is a huge middle class break.
I have found that most people that complain about how they pay too much tax pay very little tax. Like the little old lady that complains about socialism yet she lives mostly off of social security benefits and has her healthcare provided by medicare.
Post edited by Gern Blansten on
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Just how racist is the MAGA movement? This survey measures it.
It has long been understood that the MAGA movement is heavily dependent on White grievance and straight-up racism. (Hence Donald Trump’s refusal to disavow racist groups and his statement that there were “very fine people on both sides” in the violent clashes at the white-supremacist rally in Charlottesville.)
Now, we have numbers to prove it.
The connection between racism and the right-wing movement is apparent in a new poll from the Public Religion Research Institute. The survey asked respondents about 11 statements designed to probe views on racism. For example: “White Americans today are not responsible for discrimination against Black people in the past.” The pollsters then used their answers to quantify a “structural racism index,” which provides a general score from zero to 1 measuring a person’s attitudes on “white supremacy and racial inequality, the impact of discrimination on African American economic mobility, the treatment of African Americans in the criminal justice system, general perceptions of race, and whether racism is still significant problem today.” Higher scores indicate a more receptive attitude to racist beliefs.
The results shouldn’t surprise anyone paying attention to the MAGA crowd’s rhetoric and veneration of the Confederacy. “Among all Americans, the median value on the structural racism index is 0.45, near the center of the scale,” the poll found. “The median score on the structural racism index for Republicans is 0.67, compared with 0.45 for independents and 0.27 for Democrats.” Put differently, Republicans are much more likely to buy into the notion that Whites are victims.
The poll also found that the religious group that makes up the core of today’s GOP and MAGA movement has the highest structural racism measure among the demographics it surveyed: “White evangelical Protestants have the highest median score, at 0.64, while Latter-day Saints, white Catholics, and white mainline Protestants each have a median of 0.55. By contrast, religiously unaffiliated white Americans score 0.33.” This is true even though Whites report far less discrimination toward them than racial minorities do.
The survey also captured just how popular the “Lost Cause” to rewrite the history of the Civil War and downplay or ignore the evil of slavery is on the right: “Republicans overwhelmingly back efforts to preserve the legacy of the Confederacy (85%), compared with less than half of independents (46%) and only one in four Democrats (26%). The contrast between white Republicans and white Democrats is stark. Nearly nine in 10 white Republicans (87%), compared with 23% of white Democrats, support efforts to preserve the legacy of the Confederacy.”
Americans who fully support reforming Confederate monuments have a much lower structural racism index score, while those who oppose it have a much higher score. The same is true when it comes to renaming schools honoring individuals who supported slavery and racial discrimination or changing racist mascots.
Those who want to keep Confederate monuments and offensive mascots in place might deny that their views have anything to do bigotry, but then again, they often deny the legacy of racism and paint Whites as victims, too. In general, MAGA forces have one goal when they amplify “replacement theory” or fuss over corporations promoting inclusivity: to maximize White anger and resentment.
Robert P. Jones, who leads PRRI, tells me, “While this result may seem surprising or even shocking to many White Christians, it is because we do not know our own history. If we take a clear-eyed look at our history, we see a widespread, centuries-long Christian defense of white supremacy.” He adds, “For example, every major Protestant Christian denomination split over the issue of slavery in the Civil War, with Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Baptists in the South all breaking fellowship with their Northern brethren.” Given that history, Jones says, “it’s hardly a surprise that a denial of systemic racism is a defining feature of White evangelicalism today.”
The PRRI poll shows the MAGA movement has done a solid job convincing the core of the GOP base that they are victims. And let’s be clear: An aggrieved electoral minority that believes it has been victimized and is ready to deploy violence is a serious threat to an inclusive democracy.
I read someone say this in an op-ed here in NY. I forget which newspaper. I'll paraphrase.
"the middle income brackets have had to pay out more and more in taxes to help the underprivileged. There is nothing wrong with that but when is that going to help us the middle class improve our lives further? Paying out and no return isn't fair."
This is a common view I would say among the MAGA groups. Fix this way of thinking and it would get better I would think..
Yeah it should say that the middle income brackets pay out more to make up for low corporate tax rates the tax cuts for the upper income earners, who get the most financial benefit from public infrastructure. Not to mention the wasteful spending on defense contractors.
Yet the MAGAts can't stand the student loan forgiveness....which is a huge middle class break.
I have found that most people that complain about how they pay too much tax pay very little tax. Like the little old lady that complains about socialism yet she lives mostly off of social security benefits and has her healthcare provided by medicare.
What is with the wacky formatting today
Comments
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
skipped that media debate...
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A Texas sheriff on Monday opened an investigation into two flights of migrants sent to Martha's Vineyard by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, but did not say what laws may have been broken in putting 48 Venezuelans on private planes last week from San Antonio.
Bexar County Sheriff Javier Salazar, an elected Democrat, railed against the flights that took off in his city as political posturing. But he said investigators had so far only spoken to attorneys representing some of the migrants and did not name any potential suspects who might face charges.
He also did not mention DeSantis in a news conference that appeared to mark the first time a law enforcement official has said they would look into the flights.
“I believe there is some criminal activity involved here,” Salazar said. “But at present we are trying to keep an open mind and we are going to investigate to find out what exact laws were broken if that does turn out to be the case.”
DeSantis' office responded with a statement that said the migrants had been given more options to succeed in Massachusetts.
“Immigrants have been more than willing to leave Bexar County after being abandoned, homeless, and ‘left to fend for themselves,'” DeSantis spokesperson Taryn Fenske said. “Florida gave them an opportunity to seek greener pastures in a sanctuary jurisdiction that offered greater resources for them, as we expected.”
TEXAS
Gunman shoots 3 at Texas fair before being shot by deputies
AUTO RACING: Two champs eliminated as NASCAR heads to Texas
EXPLAINER: Bused, flown migrants can live in US -- for now
Angels try to end 4-game road losing streak, play the Rangers
The Venezuelan migrants who were flown to the wealthy Massachusetts island from San Antonio on Wednesday said they were told they were going to Boston. Julio Henriquez, an attorney who met with several migrants, said they “had no idea of where they were going or where they were.”
He said a Latina woman approached migrants at a city-run shelter in San Antonio and put them up at a nearby La Quinta Inn, where she visited daily with food and gift cards. She promised jobs and three months of housing in Washington, New York, Philadelphia and Boston, according to Henriquez.
Salazar said the migrants had been “preyed upon” and “hoodwinked.”
Some Democrats have urged the Justice Department to investigate the flights, including California Gov. Gavin Newsom and U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro, whose district includes San Antonio.
A federal investigation might be complicated, however. It’s not clear whether anyone boarded buses or planes unwillingly, or that their civil rights were violated. The rights of asylum seekers arriving to the U.S. are also more limited because they are not citizens. The constitution, though, does protect them from discrimination based on race or national origin and from improper treatment by the government.
___
Associated Press reporters Acacia Coronado and David Fischer in Miami contributed to this report.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I think it’s more nuanced in that if it’s not a major issue to you then you can overlook it. I think that’s what’s going on. Unless you are a culture warrior Republican that’s really not where most of your conservatives are. Both moderate republicans and libertarian leaning republicans as they especially don’t want the government involved in any of that at all
all I would really want is in a perfect world for some of these issues where there is actual consensus among the people but not within the two political parties to be handled via ballot initiative as one issue. Gun control, abortion, gay rights. It’s not as divided among the population as it appears. All have sufficiently more than majority support
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
everyone is overestimating the level of passion a pro choice Republican has on that issue. They may be pro choice but it’s an abstract issue unless your daughter is pregnant. Other issues affect their livelihood and they think republicans are on their side. Pocketbook issues win the majority of the time.
if it’s your primary issue you wouldn’t be a republican to begin with
WASHINGTON (AP) — Campaigning for a northwestern Ohio congressional seat, Republican J.R. Majewski presents himself as an Air Force combat veteran who deployed to Afghanistan after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, once describing “tough” conditions including a lack of running water that forced him to go more than 40 days without a shower.
Military documents obtained by The Associated Press through a public records request tell a different story.
They indicate Majewski never deployed to Afghanistan but instead completed a six-month stint helping to load planes at an air base in Qatar, a longtime U.S. ally that is a safe distance from the fighting.
Majewski's account of his time in the military is just one aspect of his biography that is suspect. His post-military career has been defined by exaggerations, conspiracy theories, talk of violent action against the U.S. government and occasional financial duress.
Still, thanks to an unflinching allegiance to former President Donald Trump — Majewski once painted a massive Trump mural on his lawn — he also stands a chance of defeating longtime Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur in a district recently redrawn to favor Republicans.
Majewski is among a cluster of GOP candidates, most running for office for the first time, whose unvarnished life stories and hard-right politics could diminish the chances of a Republican “red wave” on Election Day in November. He is also a vivid representation of a new breed of politicians who reject facts as they try to emulate Trump.
AFGHANISTAN
Taliban official: explosion kills 3 people in Afghan capital
Amid UN criticism, Taliban name new education minister
US contractor freed by Taliban in swap for drug trafficker
New model to enlist regular Americans to resettle refugees
“It bothers me when people trade on their military service to get elected to office when what they are doing is misleading the people they want to vote for them,” Don Christensen, a retired colonel and former chief prosecutor for the Air Force, said of Majewski. “Veterans have done so much for this country and when you claim to have done what your brothers and sisters in arms actually did to build up your reputation, it is a disservice.”
Majewski's campaign declined to make him available for an interview and, in a lengthy statement issued to the AP, did not directly address questions about his claim of deploying to Afghanistan. A spokeswoman declined to provide additional comment when the AP followed up with additional questions.
“I am proud to have served my country,” Majewski said in the statement. “My accomplishments and record are under attack, meanwhile, career politician Marcy Kaptur has a forty-year record of failure for my Toledo community, which is why I’m running for Congress.”
With no previous political experience, Majewski is perhaps an unlikely person to be the Republican nominee taking on Kaptur, who has represented the Toledo area since 1983. But two state legislators who were also on the ballot in the August GOP primary split the establishment vote. That cleared a path for Majewski, who previously worked in the nuclear power industry and dabbled in politics as a pro-Trump hip-hop performer and promoter of the QAnon conspiracy theory. He was also at the U.S. Capitol during the insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021.
Throughout his campaign Majewski has offered his Air Force service as a valuable credential. The tagline “veteran for Congress” appears on campaign merchandise. He ran a Facebook ad promoting himself as “combat veteran.” And in a campaign video released this year, Majewski marauds through a vacant factory with a rifle while pledging to restore an America that is “independent and strong like the country I fought for.”
More recently, the House Republican campaign committee released a biography that describes Majewski as a veteran whose “squadron was one of the first on the ground in Afghanistan after 9/11.” A campaign ad posted online Tuesday by Majewski supporters flashed the words “Afghanistan War Veteran” across the screen alongside a picture of a younger Majewski in his dress uniform.
A biography posted on his campaign website does not mention Afghanistan, but in an August 2021 tweet criticizing the U.S. withdraw from the country, Majewski said he would “gladly suit up and go back to Afghanistan.”
He's been far less forthcoming when asked about the specifics of his service.
“I don’t like talking about my military experience,” he said in a 2021 interview on the One American Podcast after volunteering that he served one tour of duty in Afghanistan. “It was a tough time in life. You know, the military wasn’t easy.”
A review of his service records, which the AP obtained from the National Archives through a public records request, as well as an accounting provided by the Air Force, offers a possible explanation for his hesitancy.
Rather than deploying to Afghanistan, as he has claimed, the records state that Majewski was based at Kadena Air Base in Japan for much of his active-duty service. He later deployed for six months to Qatar in May 2002, where he helped load and unload planes while serving as a "passenger operations specialist,” the records show.
While based in Qatar, Majewski would land at other air bases to transfer military passengers, medics, supplies, his campaign said. The campaign did not answer a direct question about whether he was ever in Afghanistan.
Experts argue Majewski’s description of himself as a “combat veteran” is also misleading.
The term can evoke images of soldiers storming a beachhead or finding refuge during a firefight. But under the laws and regulations of the U.S. government, facing live fire has little to do with someone earning the title.
During the Persian Gulf War, then-President George H.W. Bush designated, for the first time, countries used as combat support areas as combat zones despite the low-risk of American service members ever facing hostilities. That helped veterans receive a favorable tax status. Qatar, which is now home to the largest U.S. air base in the Middle East, was among the countries that received the designation under Bush's executive order — a status that remains in effect today.
Regardless, it rankles some when those seeking office offer their status as a combat veteran as a credential to voters without explaining that it does not mean that they came under hostile fire.
“As somebody who was in Qatar, I do not consider myself a combat veteran,” said Christensen, the retired Air Force colonel who now runs Protect Our Defenders, a military watchdog organization. “I think that would be offensive to those who were actually engaged in combat and Iraq and Afghanistan.”
Majewski's campaign said that he calls himself a combat veteran because the area he deployed to — Qatar — is considered a combat zone.
Majewski also lacks many of the medals that are typically awarded to those who served in Afghanistan.
Though he once said that he went more than 40 days without a shower during his time in the landlocked country, he does not have an Afghanistan campaign medal, which was issued to those who served “30 consecutive days or 60 nonconsecutive days" in the country.
He also did not receive a Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, which was issued to service members before the creation of the Afghanistan campaign medal if they deployed overseas in “direct service to the War on Terror.”
Matthew Borie, an Air Force veteran who worked in intelligence and reviewed Majewski’s records at AP’s request, said it's “odd” that Majewski lacks many of the “medals you would expect to see for someone who deployed to Afghanistan."
There’s also the matter of Majewski’s final rank and reenlistment code when he left active duty after four years of service.
Most leave the service after four years having received several promotions that are generally awarded for time served. Majewski exited at a rank that was one notch above where he started. His enlistment code also indicated that he could not sign up with the Air Force again.
Majewski's campaign said he received what's called a nonjudicial punishment in 2001 after getting into a "brawl" in his dormitory, which resulted in a demotion. Nonjudicial punishments are designed to hold service members accountable for bad behavior that does not rise to the level of a court-martial.
Majewski's resume exaggeration isn't limited to his military service, reverberating throughout his professional life, as well as a nascent political career that took shape in an online world of conspiracy theories.
Since gaining traction in his campaign for Congress, Majewski has denied that he is a follower of the QAnon conspiracy theory while playing down his participation in the Capitol riot.
The baseless and apocalyptic QAnon belief is based on cryptic online postings by the anonymous “Q,” who is purportedly a government insider. It posits that Trump is fighting entrenched enemies in the government and also involves satanism and child sex trafficking.
“Let me be clear, I denounce QAnon. I do not support Q, and I do not subscribe to their conspiracy theories," Majewski said in his statement to the AP.
But in the past Majewski repeatedly posted QAnon references and memes to social media, wore a QAnon shirt during a TV interview and has described Zak Paine, a QAnon influencer and online personality who goes by the nom de guerre Redpill78, as a “good friend.”
During a February 2021 appearance on a YouTube stream, Majewski stated, “I believe in everything that’s been put out from Q,” while characterizing the false posts as “military-level intelligence, in my opinion.” He also posted, to the right-wing social media platform Parler, a photo of the “Trump 2020” mural he painted on his lawn that was modified to change the zeros into “Q's,” as first reported by CNN.
Then there's Majewski's participation in the Jan. 6 insurrection. Majewski has said that he raised about $25,000 to help dozens of people attend the “Stop the Steal” rally that preceded the attack on the Capitol. He also traveled to the event with his friend Paine, the QAnon influencer, and the two later appeared in social media postings near the Capitol.
Majewski acknowledged he was outside the Capitol, but denies entering the building. Still, he lamented the decision on a QAnon livestream a week after the attack, stating that he was “pissed off at myself” for not going into the building.
“It was a struggle, because I really wanted to go in,” Majewski said on the livestream, which was first unearthed by the liberal group Media Matters.
Majewski has not been charged in connection with the attack. But he has falsely stated that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump and said that the insurrection “felt like a setup” by police who were targeting Trump supporters.
In his statement, Majewski said, “I deeply regret being at the Capitol that day" and “did not break the law," while calling for those who did to be “punished to the fullest extent of the law.”
The mischaracterizations extend to his professional career, in which he has repeatedly described himself as an “executive in the nuclear power industry,” including in a campaign ad last spring.
But a review of his now-deleted resume on the website LinkedIn and a survey of his former employers do not support the claim.
He most recently worked for Holtec International, a Florida-based energy conglomerate that specializes in handling spent nuclear fuel. But he is not listed among the executives and members of the corporate leadership teams in current or archived versions of the company's website.
A spokesman confirmed Majewski was a former Holtec employee, but declined to offer details on his position or role, which Majewski's LinkedIn page described as “senior director, client relations.”
Majewski's campaign declined to address his claim of being an executive, but said he participated in weekly conference calls with executives.
Majewski also described himself on LinkedIn as “project manager - senior consultant” for First Energy, an Ohio based power company, a position that he stated he held since shortly after leaving the military. The company, Majewski explained in a biography posted to his website, quickly recognized him for his “intellect and leadership capabilities”
Yet records from his 2009 bankruptcy raise questions about his seniority. They show he was an “outage manager” who earned about $51,000 a year. In the bankruptcy, Majewski and his wife gave up their home, two cars and a Jet Ski to settle the case, court records show.
Still, in a nationalized political environment, some Republicans suggest none of this will matter to voters.
“At the end of the day, this will be a question of whether they want Nancy Pelosi leading the House or Kevin McCarthy,” said Tom Davis, a former congressman who led the House Republican campaign arm during George W. Bush's presidency. “These elections have become less about the person. I wouldn't say candidates don’t matter, but they don’t matter like they used to."
___
LaPorta reported from Wilmington, North Carolina. AP investigative researcher Randy Herschaft in New York contributed to this report.
___
Follow AP for full coverage of the midterms at https://apnews.com/hub/2022-midterm-elections and on Twitter at https://twitter.com/ap_politics
___
This story has been corrected by deleting the reference to the social media platform Parler as being defunct.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Over
People
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
very good conversation
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Obstruct
Project
By Michael Scherer, Josh Dawsey, Isaac Arnsdorf and Marianna Sotomayor
September 27, 2022 at 6:00 ET
Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.) made a name for himself as a firebrand social media phenomenon who delighted in trolling the left, famously boasting to colleagues that he had built his House office by focusing on communications not legislation.
But the strategy made him vulnerable to forces within his own party that helped end his time in office. Top allies of Kevin McCarthy, the House Republican leader, worked this spring to deny Cawthorn a second term in office, after the Donald Trump-endorsed lawmaker made controversial comments about cocaine use and sex parties in Washington that led McCarthy to announce he had “lost my trust,” according to multiple Republicans briefed on the effort, which has not been previously reported.
GOP lobbyist Jeff Miller, one of McCarthy’s closest friends and biggest fundraisers, and Brian O. Walsh, a Republican strategist who works for multiple McCarthy-backed groups, were both involved in an independent effort to oppose Cawthorn as part of a broader project to create a more functioning GOP caucus next year, said the Republicans, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations.
Targeting Cawthorn was part of a larger behind-the-scenes effort by top GOP donors and senior strategists to purge the influence of Republican factions that seek disruption and grandstanding, often at the expense of their GOP colleagues. The political machine around McCarthy has spent millions of dollars this year in a sometimes secretive effort to systematically weed out GOP candidates who could either cause McCarthy trouble if he becomes House speaker or jeopardize GOP victories in districts where a more moderate candidate might have a better chance at winning.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Opinion Just how racist is the MAGA movement? This survey measures it.
Now, we have numbers to prove it.
The connection between racism and the right-wing movement is apparent in a new poll from the Public Religion Research Institute. The survey asked respondents about 11 statements designed to probe views on racism. For example: “White Americans today are not responsible for discrimination against Black people in the past.” The pollsters then used their answers to quantify a “structural racism index,” which provides a general score from zero to 1 measuring a person’s attitudes on “white supremacy and racial inequality, the impact of discrimination on African American economic mobility, the treatment of African Americans in the criminal justice system, general perceptions of race, and whether racism is still significant problem today.” Higher scores indicate a more receptive attitude to racist beliefs.
The results shouldn’t surprise anyone paying attention to the MAGA crowd’s rhetoric and veneration of the Confederacy. “Among all Americans, the median value on the structural racism index is 0.45, near the center of the scale,” the poll found. “The median score on the structural racism index for Republicans is 0.67, compared with 0.45 for independents and 0.27 for Democrats.” Put differently, Republicans are much more likely to buy into the notion that Whites are victims.
The poll also found that the religious group that makes up the core of today’s GOP and MAGA movement has the highest structural racism measure among the demographics it surveyed: “White evangelical Protestants have the highest median score, at 0.64, while Latter-day Saints, white Catholics, and white mainline Protestants each have a median of 0.55. By contrast, religiously unaffiliated white Americans score 0.33.” This is true even though Whites report far less discrimination toward them than racial minorities do.
The survey also captured just how popular the “Lost Cause” to rewrite the history of the Civil War and downplay or ignore the evil of slavery is on the right: “Republicans overwhelmingly back efforts to preserve the legacy of the Confederacy (85%), compared with less than half of independents (46%) and only one in four Democrats (26%). The contrast between white Republicans and white Democrats is stark. Nearly nine in 10 white Republicans (87%), compared with 23% of white Democrats, support efforts to preserve the legacy of the Confederacy.”
Americans who fully support reforming Confederate monuments have a much lower structural racism index score, while those who oppose it have a much higher score. The same is true when it comes to renaming schools honoring individuals who supported slavery and racial discrimination or changing racist mascots.
Those who want to keep Confederate monuments and offensive mascots in place might deny that their views have anything to do bigotry, but then again, they often deny the legacy of racism and paint Whites as victims, too. In general, MAGA forces have one goal when they amplify “replacement theory” or fuss over corporations promoting inclusivity: to maximize White anger and resentment.
Robert P. Jones, who leads PRRI, tells me, “While this result may seem surprising or even shocking to many White Christians, it is because we do not know our own history. If we take a clear-eyed look at our history, we see a widespread, centuries-long Christian defense of white supremacy.” He adds, “For example, every major Protestant Christian denomination split over the issue of slavery in the Civil War, with Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Baptists in the South all breaking fellowship with their Northern brethren.” Given that history, Jones says, “it’s hardly a surprise that a denial of systemic racism is a defining feature of White evangelicalism today.”
The PRRI poll shows the MAGA movement has done a solid job convincing the core of the GOP base that they are victims. And let’s be clear: An aggrieved electoral minority that believes it has been victimized and is ready to deploy violence is a serious threat to an inclusive democracy.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
"the middle income brackets have had to pay out more and more in taxes to help the underprivileged. There is nothing wrong with that but when is that going to help us the middle class improve our lives further? Paying out and no return isn't fair."
This is a common view I would say among the MAGA groups. Fix this way of thinking and it would get better I would think.
I wish I had the article to post.
"the middle income brackets have had to pay out more and more in taxes to help the underprivileged. There is nothing wrong with that but when is that going to help us the middle class improve our lives further? Paying out and no return isn't fair."
This is a common view I would say among the MAGA groups. Fix this way of thinking and it would get better I would think..
It should say that the middle income brackets pay out more to make up for low corporate tax rates and the tax cuts for the upper income earners, who get the most financial benefit from public infrastructure. Not to mention the wasteful spending on defense contractors. Italics are mine. Weird formatting problem on this post
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
Yeah it should say that the middle income brackets pay out more to make up for low corporate tax rates the tax cuts for the upper income earners, who get the most financial benefit from public infrastructure. Not to mention the wasteful spending on defense contractors.
Yet the MAGAts can't stand the student loan forgiveness....which is a huge middle class break.
I have found that most people that complain about how they pay too much tax pay very little tax. Like the little old lady that complains about socialism yet she lives mostly off of social security benefits and has her healthcare provided by medicare.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Yet the MAGAts can't stand the student loan forgiveness....which is a huge middle class break.
I have found that most people that complain about how they pay too much tax pay very little tax. Like the little old lady that complains about socialism yet she lives mostly off of social security benefits and has her healthcare provided by medicare. What is with the wacky formatting today
There are no kings inside the gates of eden