2022 U.S. Senate Races

#352
#352
BowlBrother85 said:
Most Republicans "endorsed her dad and his ways," while he was Vice President. What a stupid thing to make an issue out of. There weren't any Republican members of Congress from 2001-2009 speaking out against the Bush Administration, or the war in Iraq. To the contrary, they defended it.
Click to expand...
what a stupid way to only pick one part. Not sure many supported his dealings Halliburton Blackwater and close to 40B (Halliburton) to his old company. I also stated she opposed her sisters gay marriage. She’s a dead person walking in politics and her family tree isn’t one of integrity or morals.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman and StarRaider
#353
#353
Majors said:
what a stupid way to only pick one part. Not sure many supported his dealings Halliburton Blackwater and close to 40B (Halliburton) to his old company. I also stated she opposed her sisters gay marriage. She’s a dead person walking in politics and her family tree isn’t one of integrity or morals.
Click to expand...
There weren't any Republican members of Congress publicly critical of it while Dick Cheney was Vice President, and that was the time to do it. It's too late now.

... and you are being inconsistent here. On one hand, you are critical of her for not denouncing her father, while also being critical of her for not going against her beliefs for her sister.

She just took a principled stand against the most popular figure in her party, and considering how much you come to Trump's defense on here, it's hard to believe that integrity and morals are of any importance to you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128
#354
#354
BowlBrother85 said:
There weren't any Republican members of Congress publicly critical of it while Dick Cheney was Vice President, and that was the time to do it. It's too late now.

... and you are being inconsistent here. On one hand, you are critical of her for not denouncing her father, while also being critical of her for not going against her beliefs for her sister.

She just took a principled stand against the most popular figure in her party, and considering how much you come to Trump's defense on here, it's hard to believe that integrity and morals are of any importance to you.
Click to expand...

Cheney and principle stand or integrity don’t fit, try again.

By the way, how are those principle Jan 6th hearings? Still nothing.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#355
#355
Majors said:
Cheney and principle stand or integrity don’t fit, try again.

By the way, how are those principle Jan 6th hearings? Still nothing.
Click to expand...
In this instance, they absolutely do fit. There is no other logical explanation for her public opposition to Donald Trump, than it being a matter of principle. She did not gain anything from it personally.

The January 6th Commission hearings will resume in September.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128
#358
#358
luthervol said:
In your world, everything everybody does is self-serving.........or at least should be.
The key is obviously to be smart enough to create a system where the best way for a politician to be self-serving is by doing what is right for society. Same with business/capitalism by the way.
Click to expand...

Luther you are nothing but a leach completely dependent on a host for survival. If you had to make a living outside of being a government employee you would starve.
 
#360
#360
BowlBrother85 said:
I understand the cynicism towards elected officials. I really do.

In this specific case, however, any political ambitions which Liz Cheney may have had, weren't advanced by taking such a public stand against Donald Trump. The only motive which makes any sense, is that she took such an unpopular stance, based on principles.
Click to expand...

Correct, she gambled and lost. She thought the Cheney name would always carry WY (ever wonder why she hasn’t taken her husbands last name) regardless what she did. She was betting her anti Trump stance would help her in the purple states knowing most red states would blindly vote for whoever was on the R ticket.
She was angling for that VP spot if she couldn’t get top billing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
#361
#361
whodeycin85 said:
And her opposition of DeSantis?
Click to expand...
She was critical of Ron DeSantis, Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley for indulging Donald Trump's rigged election fantasy, and supporting his Unconstitutional efforts to retain the presidency following his defeat. Her criticism was focused, in particular, on the "alternate elector" scheme, which amounted to election fraud, in its own right. Cruz and Hawley are both Constitutional scholars who never publicly denounced that scheme, when they simply had to know that there was no lawful basis for it.

Her criticism of DeSantis, Cruz and Hawley comes down to them not showing any backbone. There is not a scenario or set of conditions under which Donald Trump could ever lose an election without completely attributing his defeat either to some form of fraud, or to his opponent having cheated.

Of all people, Ted Cruz should understand this, and have the spine to speak out against it. What was Donald Trump's response to finishing 2nd to Ted Cruz in the 2016 Iowa Caucuses? Donald Trump accused the Ted Cruz campaign of cheating, of course.

The Republican Party is spineless right now. Republicans know right from wrong. They just don't have the courage to speak out against Trump, when they know he is wrong. The Republican Party has devolved into a Cult of Personality, where they are collectively defined by their cowardice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128
#362
#362
hog88 said:
Correct, she gambled and lost. She thought the Cheney name would always carry WY (ever wonder why she hasn’t taken her husbands last name) regardless what she did. She was betting her anti Trump stance would help her in the purple states knowing most red states would blindly vote for whoever was on the R ticket.
She was angling for that VP spot if she couldn’t get top billing.
Click to expand...
I don't believe that she expected to win the Republican Party nomination for Wyoming's House seat after joining the January 6th Commission. Why would her standing in states outside of Wyoming have been of any consequence to her?
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128
#363
#363
BowlBrother85 said:
I don't believe that she expected to win the Republican Party nomination for Wyoming's House seat after joining the January 6th Commission. Why would her standing in states outside of Wyoming have been of any consequence to her?
Click to expand...

Because she wanted to be on the big ticket. And yes she fully believed she would win her seat again when she took on the quest. Once it became clear she screwed up it was too late to backtrack.

I do think depending on who’s appointed the nominee that she still has a chance at being on the ticket. I don’t believe either Trump or DeSantis gets the nomination.
 
#365
#365
hog88 said:
Because she wanted to be on the big ticket. And yes she fully believed she would win her seat again when she took on the quest. Once it became clear she screwed up it was too late to backtrack.

I do think depending on who’s appointed the nominee that she still has a chance at being on the ticket. I don’t believe either Trump or DeSantis gets the nomination.
Click to expand...
There is no way in hell that she believed she would retain her seat in the House, after joining the January 6th Commission... and she ran a half-hearted, token campaign with that in mind.

If running for President is an ambition of hers, then it made more sense for her to do whatever she could to remain in good stead with the Republican Party base, and retain her seat in the House of Representatives.

Joining the January 6th Commission and voicing her opposition to Donald Trump's conduct, makes no sense as a self-serving political strategy. Trump's approval ratings among likely Republican Party voters are still much higher than anyone else who is currently a member of the Republican Party. Elected officials these days are always keenly aware of what the polls say.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128
#367
#367
BowlBrother85 said:
There is no way in hell that she believed she would retain her seat in the House, after joining the January 6th Commission... and she ran a half-hearted, token campaign with that in mind.

If running for President is an ambition of hers, then it made more sense for her to do whatever she could to remain in good stead with the Republican Party base, and retain her seat in the House of Representatives.

Joining the January 6th Commission and voicing her opposition to Donald Trump's conduct, makes no sense as a self-serving political strategy. Trump's approval ratings among likely Republican Party voters are still much higher than anyone else who is currently a member of the Republican Party. Elected officials these days are always keenly aware of what the polls say.
Click to expand...

Bullshat! She thought her last name would win her enough votes to secure her seat.
 
#368
#368
hog88 said:
Bullshat! She thought her last name would win her enough votes to secure her seat.
Click to expand...
This is what you want to believe, because for some reason, you feel a need to assign a self-serving agenda to any Republican who dares to defy Donald Trump.

However, in the case of Liz Cheney, it just doesn't make any sense. Also, the caliber of campaign she waged is not indicative of a candidate who was confident that they would win.

Her stance against Donald Trump is only logically sound when interpreted to be principled opposition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128
#369
#369
BowlBrother85 said:
This is what you want to believe, because for some reason, you feel a need to assign a self-serving agenda to any Republican who dares to defy Donald Trump.

However, in the case of Liz Cheney, it just doesn't make any sense. Also, the caliber of campaign she waged is not indicative of a candidate who was confident that they would win.

Her stance against Donald Trump is only logically sound when interpreted to be principled opposition.
Click to expand...

You admitted she ran a half hearted campaign. That’s what incumbents not worried about their seat do.
 
#370
#370
hog88 said:
Because she wanted to be on the big ticket. And yes she fully believed she would win her seat again when she took on the quest. Once it became clear she screwed up it was too late to backtrack.

I do think depending on who’s appointed the nominee that she still has a chance at being on the ticket. I don’t believe either Trump or DeSantis gets the nomination.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree. You think the Cheneys didn't know exactly what public reaction would be? Come on. They had a very clear understanding
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128
#371
#371
hog88 said:
You admitted she ran a halff that hearted campaign. That’s what incumbentse not worried about their seat do.
Click to expand...
... or that is what an incumbent does when they are resigned to losing. In the case of Liz Cheney, that makes more sense. Her poll numbers cratered immediately after joining the January 6th Commission. Your argument that her opposition to Trump's conduct was a self-serving political strategy isn't supported by any logical reasoning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128
#372
#372
volfanhill said:
I have to disagree. You think the Cheneys didn't know exactly what public reaction would be? Come on. They had a very clear understanding
Click to expand...

I fully believe that they thought the Cheney name would be enough to carry her in WY.
 
#373
#373
BowlBrother85 said:
... or that is what an incumbent does when they are resigned to losing. In the case of Liz Cheney, that makes more sense. Her poll numbers cratered immediately after joining the January 6th Commission. Your argument that her opposition to Trump's conduct was a self-serving political strategy isn't supported by any logical reasoning.
Click to expand...

You refuse to see the logic. How long did she wait after she lost to announce she was considering a presidential run?
 
#375
#375
hog88 said:
You refuse to see the logic. How long did she wait after she lost to announce she was considering a presidential run?
Click to expand...
She knows what the polls say and what they have always said. Her opposition to Donald Trump's conduct, is a deeply unpopular position to run from. I'm sure she realized that her ambitions of running for President were better served by retaining her House seat, and not adopting such an unpopular approach. It doesn't make any sense to assign a self-serving political agenda to this position. She is not a political neophyte, and she knows the lay of the political landscape in Wyoming, and throughout the Republican Party.

It is odd that you find it beyond comprehension, that her stance against Trump, is merely one of principled opposition. There always has to be a self-serving agenda at work, whenever a Republican (FINALLY!) stands up to Trump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top