(Nevermind.)
I must be old; working with others to accomplish things like passing laws seemed like the whole point of being elected to a legislative position.
Well, the Republican party has been the party of “Just say NO (to anything a Democrat says)” since at least Obama… so, maybe? More like, you’re the sort of citizen our Declaration of Independence and Consitution assume (well, okay, as long as you were white and male) but modern political parties despise. NOTE - this isn’t false equivalency, which I hope the earlier lines indicate, but the two party system does put emphasis on Party loyalty for both, however the Democrats on the whole actually accept that they have at least some responsibility to govern on behalf of all, not JUST their constituents. Which Biden pointed out.
Back to Boebert - I hope Buck’s replacement gets something, anything done prior to the next election. They can then run on the “What has Boebert actually accomplished?” Platform, which, as pointed out in-thread, is absolutely nothing for anyone other than herself.
Tasteless Comment
I originally typed “absolutely dick-all” instead of absolutely nothing. And thought it was far too spot on a description but wrong for P&E even if it was accurate.
Damn, ninja’d because I was googling “uniparty.” May as well share the pain that looking at conservopedia is with the rest of the class. Extra credit to those who immediately think “why don’t they just say the Jews?”
The "Uniparty " is a term that describes the globalist establishment’s control over politics and policy to the extent that every or nearly every major political party or politician are controlled by them and, thus, have far more in common than different, policy-wise. It is essentially synonymous with the deep state, as it retains control almost regardless of which political party or politician is elected.
Critics of the establishment assert that the uniparty establishment asserts control over every or most major political parties and political figures. The numerous non-governmental organizations that leaders from both parties support, and vice-versa, serve as evidence for this claim. For example, U.S. Presidents of both political parties chose to fill their administrations with members of globalist organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. Additionally, prominent figures from both political parties tend to be members of the Bilderberg group and the Bohemian Grove.
Add in a dash of “Russia is the last bastion of true freedom and anti-wokeness”:
U.S. Col Douglas MacGregor, a critic of the globalist and Uniparty war on Russia said, “Russia to them [the Uniparty and globalists] represents the last major European state that is not part of the globalist internationalist empire, if you will. They’ve [Russia] resisted LGBTQ, they’ve resisted what I would call this interesting blend of nihilism, Marxism, atheism, and as a result, they [Russia] have to be subverted and overthrown.”
Yes folks, the war has nothing to do with Russia invading its neighbor, it’s a war on Russia started by the Jews Uniparty.
MAGAts are mostly a protest movement against the Establishment. And they count both parties as the Establishment. The politicians such as Boebert attempting to cash in on this anger understand that.
In a funny way, it amounts to being a different sort of RINO. Back in the Tea Party days (how quaint that now seems), RINO meant someone too centrist, a Republican Lite if you will.
Now folks like the Freedom caucus, Boebert, and even trump are in effect saying "The Republicans are evil and must be stopped. We are running under their banner because to get elected you must be under one or the other banner. But our goal is to destroy everything the R party ever stood for and replace it with MAGAtism from shining white sea to shining white sea. We’re RINOs too, but from the extreme side, not the centrist side.
They don’t use those words, but IMO that’s the message. And a nice irony it is.
In a little over 200 years, the U.S. rose from a small experiment in democracy into a prosperous superpower. Clearly, the old way of doing things must be overthrown!
My MAGA mother looked at me with a straight face and said Nikki Haley was a Democrat. When I asked about Liz Cheney it turned out she was a Democrat too. I don’t remember which thread, but a fellow Doper posted: RIP Republican Party 1854-2024 in reasponse to Donald taking over the Republican National Convention. I think that’s fair. The Republican party is dead and MAGA has emerged from the ashes.
I’m curious whether your Mom meant that as:
-
Haley & Cheney are publicly avowed members of the Democratic Party, always have been, and anyone who says otherwise is just confused.
-
Haley & Cheney are literally secret members of the Democratic Party just shilling as real Rs.
-
Haley & Cheney are really members of the Republican Party, but are so far left of being “good” Rs that they may as well be Democrats.
All of those ideas are wacky, but you can see how much more unhinged door #1 is than door #3.
And I’m not picking on your Mom as such. She’s almost certainly just spouting what she’s been told to spout, so there are doubtless millions of people holding the same factually mistaken beliefs.
My own Mom died in 2006, so after Limbaugh and Hannity got big but before Trump. She’d totally gone down the RW rabbit hole then and I have no doubt that were she alive today she’d be a raging MAGAt. Sigh.
Those bastards have a lot to answer for.
I certainly don’t mind discussing this, but I fear this might hijack what’s supposed to be a thread about Boebert and I want to respect the OP.
I would be interested if you start a thread. I suggest “Magamom” as the title. My elderly mother has gone the other way but with some of the same symptoms.
I’m not sure whether they call it that but I’ve also heard similar Uniparty rhetoric from the far left. This is the one instance where horseshoe theory is actually correct.
To be fair the correct time line would be
Republican party 1854-1964
Greedy Fundy Bigot party 1965-2016
MAGA Insurrectionsit party 2017-?
I think the better analogy is “The Republican party is dead and MAGA is running around wearing its skin.” Like The Bug in Men in Black.
I agree with you, and not just because I’ve said the same thing!
My question, and going back to the subject of this thread, is does Boebert or any of the MAGA politicians (supporters are a very different story) believe their own propaganda. Because I don’t think most of them do - they see it as their shot at money, fame and power, but I see damn all evidence that they’re sincere in any way at all, or they’d be working more towards actually acomplishing something, even if that thing is totally negative by my and others POV.
Back to the comparison with the Tea Party, I found most of them similar, but a few including Ken Buck as recently mentioned, did seem to actually give a rat’s ass about the nation, even if on the whole, I loathed them and their epic hypocrisy which was often on open display.
So, and again back to Boebert, let’s re-answer the question from the OP:
Nothing. She’s a reality TV star fundamentally, and she’s worried (with good cause!) about being cancelled for declining ratings and poor reviews. At this point, she’s basically at the stage of shouting on Xitter “My show was cancelled because those Jew-producers don’t like what I’m saying.”
Why not? Colorado law or Federal law?
Bolding mine.
I think the idiots like Boebert are sincere, insofar as they (like their followers) believe that there are simple, forceful solutions to every problem if the Deep State would just get the fuck out of the way. But since the Deep State is so well-entrenched, their #1 job now is to destroy it – and in their minds, that amounts to subverting democracy and “normal” society however possible. That’s what they’re “accomplishing.”
Of course, the money and fame are nice fringe benefits.
Well, I obviously don’t agree, but it’s probably a moot point when discussing the outcomes. Although, I’d probably agree that they’re contrarians and semi-nihilists by nature, and they’re sincere to those urges. Of course, I could be (gasp!) giving them too MUCH credit by thinking they’re smart enough (well, at least some of them) to not fall into the trap of believing their own propaganda the way the followers do.
I’ll tell you what, in the non-zero chance that Boebert is sincere, then I will bow to your superior judgement (no, seriously) if she loses, and in losing, decides to follow through with a lot of her posturing and shoot some people up for Freedum. I only wish it were a non-zero chance.
This is how I defined “sincere” – they truly believe the crap they say. They are actually stupid enough to be sincere in these beliefs.
The special election is to finish up the term of the guy who resigned. She’s already in Congress and can’t serve in two places. She can run in the regualr election for the next term in a new district.
Legally, I don’t see why she couldn’t run in the special election and then resign her current seat in Congress just prior to being sworn in to her newly elected district. But 1) she’s already taken herself out of consideration for the special, and 2) because the nominees in the special are chosen by the state parties, there was no way the Colorado GOP was going to nominate someone who would just create another Republican vacancy a few months down the line.
It has been mentioned in this thread that CO state law does not allow a sitting member of Congress to run in a special election for a seat in a different district without resigning the seat they currently occupy.