Mothra said:
Sam Lowry said:
Forest Bueller_bf said:
Sam Lowry said:
Mothra said:
Sam Lowry said:
Mothra said:
Sam Lowry said:
Mothra said:
Sam Lowry said:
Mothra said:
Osodecentx said:
Mothra said:
Sam Lowry said:
ATL Bear said:
What an idiot, and who are these idiots cheering that?
The same idiots he encouraged to precipitate a coup on 1/6. Are you starting to see now?
That there is a minority of fringe nuts in the Republican Party? Is that some sort of newsflash? Each side has their crazies.
Still doesn't justify a vote that supported Biden.
!. Flynn is a Republican
2. He served as NS advisor to a Republican president
3. He advocated the violent overthrow of the US government
I'm looking for stories about Republicans denouncing Flynn's recommendation
I'm sure there are some stories out there
Actually he is a lifelong Dem, and when asked, doesn't claim to belong to a party. Look up some of his quotes on the subject.
As for no. 2, he was fired after 3 weeks on the job.
As for no. 3, that is what has been reported, but he said he never advocated for that position. Let me ask you a question: Do you think it's possible that the media might have twisted Flynn's words to mean something he did not?
As for your last point, tell me, what good does it serve to denounce the painfully obvious? Should Republicans give credence to a fringe, discredited figure based on comments at a tiny rally in Dallas? Flynn has never been elected to any position. He has no power.
It serves no good purpose whatsoever to denounce Flynn other than to give the Dems another talking point.
Oh no, not another Dem talking point! Never mind a little sedition then...sorry for interrupting.
You still haven't answered my question, chicken little. Do the vast majority of Repubs agree with sedition or not?
I don't know. Why does it matter? I doubt the vast majority of Dems agree with burning down cities, but that doesn't mean they won't turn a blind eye. Don't want to give the GOP a talking point, after all.
Playing dumb again? When you proffer that Republicans must "own" statements of the crazy fringe elements of the party, it suggests that you believe a good percentage of them hold those positions. Otherwise, why suggest that a party "own" the views of its fringe elements?
Thus, I was curious if that's what you truly believed. Apparently, you are afraid to give an honest answer or simply or can't answer the question. Thus, your position that Republicans must "own" Flynn's views remains absurd.
As for your comparison to Dems and the BLM riots, when a large number of Republicans come out in support of Flynn's comments and even fund sedition efforts, then your comparison might be an apt one. Until then, it likewise is absurd.
I assumed you were talking about voters. The party leaders are obviously okay with it, as evidenced by the fact that West shared a stage with Flynn in the first place. No sane party would have anything to do with Flynn after his tweets helped incite the Capitol riot.
We are talking about Republicans. It wasn't a difficult question. Why should Republicans own the statements of the fringe?
And are we talking about the same West who denounced Flynn's comments? The same West who did not appear with Flynn at the event in question?
You have very strange logic.
West did appear at the event.
What you should own is not the seditionists, but the fact of their influence in the party.
I sure hope they have little influence outside of the nutty type that shows for these rallys and the nuts that marched into the Capitol.
If you took a poll of the 50 Republican Senators I would bet you would get a zero count for those wanting a takeover by the Military.
If you polled the 211 Republican Representatives I would hope you would poll zero, but there are probably a couple of total nuts in the group that might say yes.
I don't think that far fringe group has a whole lot of influence when you get down to it. It certainly isn't mainstream thought.
Then why pander to it? At what point do you draw the line?
Who is pandering to it? The only person I have heard that suggested insurrection is Flynn, and even he has now backed off those statements, claiming he was taken out of context. Whether true or not, that's a grand total of one fringe person in any authoritative capacity (if you want to call it that) suggesting a coup.
Look, as we discussed the other day, I agree with you that it's the nutjobs suggesting the election was stolen. It's the even bigger nut jobs that are suggesting some sort of coup. Both are bad for the party. No question. But this idea that the Republicans have to "own" the fringe beliefs of the nutjobs is simply ridiculous.
It would be like demanding all Democrats own that a part of their party plank is abortion allowed right up to birth with no limitations.
Wait, that is a mainline plank, not some far fringe ideology only the nuts embrace. Of course only nuts embrace it, it is evil, but it is covered in verbiage that makes it seem acceptable, it isn't.
Trump is gone, ain't coming back. That is his fantasy. He is no more qualified to run in 2024, than Biden was in 2020. Way too old, way too crazy..of course that didn't stop Biden, lets hope Republican leadership has enough sense to not allow a repeat of 2016.