Jump to content
The Political Lounge

Liz Cheney removed from her position


Timur
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Timur changed the title to Liz Cheney removed from her position
1 hour ago, Patine said:

What was her position, and what was the reason given?

She didn't believe in Trump's BS claim that elections were "RIGGED!" and publicly spoke out against him so she had no place in modern day GOP cult.To paraphrase the cult leader this is just SAD!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She was the Chair of the House Republican Conference, making her the third highest ranking Republican in the House.  Also Dick Cheney's daughter.  She voted to impeach him (one of only nine Republicans to do so) following the Capitol Insurrection, and continued to denounce Trump's claims that the election was rigged against him.  She also fist-bumped President Biden at his recent speech, showing a hint of bipartisanship, for which she was immediately punished and demoted by her party.

While she stood for a wide variety of things that I am against, I do appreciate her leadership in calling out Trump's acts of treason from her position as a high ranking member of his own party, even though she likely knew it would cost her her political future.

Edited by MrPotatoTed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Patine said:

But Dick Cheney is EVIL!!!!

Not to our Democracy at least... he barely won both of his runs and hed lose in a landslide worse than Mike Pence if he actually ran.

Come on, Cheney/Rumsfeld 2024

 

NEO CON THIRD PARTY SPLITS TRUMP VOTE. DEMOCRATS WIN WYOMING

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

What Democracy? Haven't I addressed this ad nausium already? The problem is every election always (or almost always) has such wretched, toxic candidates with very little integrity or such horrid baggage (or who quickly gain it after being elected) who are, "viable," and, "electable," (i.e., Duopoly candidates nominated by an unrepresentative and manipulatable primary system who depend heavily on the support of corrupt corrupt donors, moneyed special interest and lobby groups, and unprincipled, untrustworthy, and firespitting media outlets), as well as such further tools as the anachronistic EC, State ballot access laws punishing non-Duopoly candidates, and a BIPARTISAN (not non-partisan, like in most First World Nations) electoral agency and Federal courts to judge irregularities, make for a very undemocratic system - though admittedly not a full-out tyranny - but one of the five worst in the First World.

I don't think @Pringles is suggesting that Dick Cheney be president. He's suggesting that he run to split the Trump vote so Trump can't win. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I don't think @Pringles is suggesting that Dick Cheney be president. He's suggesting that he run to split the Trump vote so Trump can't win. 

I doubt how much of the Trump vote Cheney would actually take for two reasons.One,Cheney is completely uncharismatic and bad campaigner who works better behind the scenes so i doubt his campaign would actually get much traction.Second,Republicans are much more disciplined and better in falling in line than Democrats and therefore less likely to go for 3rd party candidate,they would hold their nose and vote for Trump like they did twice already. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Patine said:

What I'm thinking (which kind of led to a reprise of a frustrated spiel) is that those kind of tactics SHOULDN'T be needed. There should be more - and better - choice, than the seemingly feared rematch between two tired old Dotards. There should be more than two VIABLE candidates in a nation of over 400 million with very little in the way of strong tradition of cultural conformity. Do you see my point, there?

I see your point, but you have to deal with the reality of the situation before you. We have two choices and only two choices. You know I'd prefer a system more like you have in mind. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Rodja said:

I doubt how much of the Trump vote Cheney would actually take for two reasons.One,Cheney is completely uncharismatic and bad campaigner who works better behind the scenes so i doubt his campaign would actually get much traction.Second,Republicans are much more disciplined and better in falling in line than Democrats and therefore less likely to go for 3rd party candidate,they would hold their nose and vote for Trump like they did twice already. 

According to polls, about 20-40% of Republicans want a nominee other than Trump. I'm not sure how many of these are Never Trump or Trump-critical. A loss of even 2% would devastate the GOP. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pilight said:

Inside baseball.  Only a few die-hards care.

Only to a certain degree.

Did anybody know or care that Liz Cheney existed before recent events?  Probably not.

But the fact that the Republican Party eats their own, if they dare not cowtow to insane conspiracies about the 2020 election -- if declaring that Donald Trump remains President today is a requirement of all card-carrying Republicans -- that is MAJOR news.  Between the majority of the Republicans in the House kicking Cheney out and Romney being booed by Republicans in his own state of Utah, this isn't "inside baseball" anymore.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Rodja said:

I doubt how much of the Trump vote Cheney would actually take for two reasons.One,Cheney is completely uncharismatic and bad campaigner who works better behind the scenes so i doubt his campaign would actually get much traction.Second,Republicans are much more disciplined and better in falling in line than Democrats and therefore less likely to go for 3rd party candidate,they would hold their nose and vote for Trump like they did twice already. 

My dream scenario is a Trumpette like DeSantis wins the Republican nomination...but then tries to take a step away from Trump in the general election and Trump gets so offended that he declares a late-in-the-game third party run himself.  THAT would tear the Republican party in half, guaranteeing the Democrat win.

Well...that's my "realistic" dream scenario, anyway.

My real dream scenario is the Republicans nominate an adult.  But it's been so long since that happened, I can barely even remember it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Patine said:

What Democracy? Haven't I addressed this ad nausium already? The problem is every election always (or almost always) has such wretched, toxic candidates with very little integrity or such horrid baggage (or who quickly gain it after being elected) who are, "viable," and, "electable," (i.e., Duopoly candidates nominated by an unrepresentative and manipulatable primary system who depend heavily on the support of corrupt corrupt donors, moneyed special interest and lobby groups, and unprincipled, untrustworthy, and firespitting media outlets), as well as such further tools as the anachronistic EC, State ballot access laws punishing non-Duopoly candidates, and a BIPARTISAN (not non-partisan, like in most First World Nations) electoral agency and Federal courts to judge irregularities, make for a very undemocratic system - though admittedly not a full-out tyranny - but one of the five worst in the First World.

I think you're the only one pushing this point here. And how can people adequately defend a democracy if they dont even recognize we have one? 

I'm glad your Canadian. I think everybody in politics isnt some upstanding morally perfect human you'd like them to be. And they never will be. It's what comes with the job.

And yes. @vcczar, I dont want Dick Cheney for POTUS. I think itd be funny if he ran to split the vote from a Trumpist though. Hes very capable of taking at least a percent or 2 with the right kind of attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Patine said:

What I'm thinking (which kind of led to a reprise of a frustrated spiel) is that those kind of tactics SHOULDN'T be needed. There should be more - and better - choice, than the seemingly feared rematch between two tired old Dotards. There should be more than two VIABLE candidates in a nation of over 400 million with very little in the way of strong tradition of cultural conformity. Do you see my point, there?

Welcome to reality. It's been done before you know. 1912 a prime example. There are people in the world who criticize, whine, and complain, and then, as Teddy Roosevelt would say. There are the men in the arena who take action. 

Liz Cheney and any Republican repudiating Trump right now is doing their part in my mind. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, MrPotatoTed said:

My real dream scenario is the Republicans nominate an adult.  But it's been so long since that happened, I can barely even remember it.

8 years is quite the distance to travel

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Dobs said:

8 years is quite the distance to travel

Romney wasn’t a bad person, in my view, but extremely behind the ball on LGBTQ rights.  And his promise to talk to lawyers before responding to a military attack was woefully inept.

 

But obviously I’d vote for Romney 100 times over Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Romney wasn’t a bad person, in my view, but extremely behind the ball on LGBTQ rights.  And his promise to talk to lawyers before responding to a military attack was woefully inept.

 

But obviously I’d vote for Romney 100 times over Trump.

So you disagreed with him on policy. He remains an adult. 😉

I'm also not familiar with the lawyers on a military attack thing. But I always appreciate a President eager to discuss foreign policy actions and war powers with Constitutional scholars.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Patine said:

Well, of course you do. How far would Bush have gotten in what he was known for if did anything - you know, LEGAL! But, of course, you often say he can't be considered the high criminal he is, just because he was, "making hard choices," and, "the nation had to (blindly and unconditionally) trust him," and other statements that show VERY dubious judgement by you on the matter. But we already know how each other feel about the matter thoroughly...

Not sure who you’re quoting with those quotes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Patine said:

Paraphrasing, if not exact statements, things you've said in the past.

To find the exact quotes, I'd have to go back and dig around in Anthony's cesspool of a site.

I'll take credit for "making hard choices."  That's what leaders do, and what I'd expect of every President regardless of political affiliation.  

I certainly never suggested the nation HAD to trust him, especially not blindly and unconditionally.  My trust in him was neither blind nor unconditional.  It was earned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dobs said:

So you disagreed with him on policy. He remains an adult. 😉

 

Ha, fair.  I don't know how old you are, but as I creep ever closer to 40, I equate adulthood with...well, as Patine said, "making hard choices."  2012 Romney was weak.  Admittedly, he's done a lot of growing up over these past four years. ;c)

As for constitutional scholars -- definitely happy to have their opinion on matters of law.  But they can go wait in the car when we're under military attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Patine said:

Because the supreme law of the land takes a back seat to a given President's view of pragmatic necessity? Sounds like ripe conditions to move toward a Third World despotism - who, themselves, love using wars and national emergencies to cease more and more undue and illegal power.

If somebody broke into your home, with the intent to harm you, would you call the police?

Or would you call your lawyer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:


As for constitutional scholars -- definitely happy to have their opinion on matters of law.  But they can go wait in the car when we're under military attack.

I must say that I disagree with this attitude when it comes to Republics. The constitution doesn’t just go away in times of war, that can have disastrous consequences. I know you place a high premium on rule of law due to your attacks on Trump (rightfully so) in that area. Rule of law still applies in war time.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

If somebody broke into your home, with the intent to harm you, would you call the police?

Or would you call your lawyer?

The government is not a private citizen and cannot be compared to one effectively.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dobs said:

I must say that I disagree with this attitude when it comes to Republics. The constitution doesn’t just go away in times of war, that can have disastrous consequences. I know you place a high premium on rule of law due to your attacks on Trump (rightfully so) in that area. Rule of law still applies in war time.

But to what extent?

I was held to the military's Code of Conduct and the Geneva Conventions during my deployment to Iraq, and rightfully so.  These rules were absolutely important, and violating them would cause more harm to our safety than good.

But I observe no value in asking a lawyer for permission to go to war, after we've already been attacked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...