Go back
Will the Blue Landslide influence Republicans

Will the Blue Landslide influence Republicans

Debates

Vote Up
Vote Down
-1

@no1marauder said
No.

It's still political suicide within the GOP to oppose Trump on virtually any lssue nevermind support impeachment.
You are still wrong.
You said "virtually any issue".

You can sugar coat it anyway you want. People can see what you wrote.

1 edit
Vote Up
2
Vote Down

@Metal-Brain said
You are still wrong.
You said "virtually any issue".

You can sugar coat it anyway you want. People can see what you wrote.
Sen. John Cornyn would disagree: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2026-election/john-cornyn-undone-trump-misgivings-texas-gop-senate-runoff-decades-lo-rcna346393

There's a list in this NY Times article if you have access: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/20/us/politics/trump-republicans-primaries-revenge.html

Vote Up
Vote Down
-1

@no1marauder said
Sen. John Cornyn would disagree: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2026-election/john-cornyn-undone-trump-misgivings-texas-gop-senate-runoff-decades-lo-rcna346393

There's a list in this NY Times article if you have access: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/20/us/politics/trump-republicans-primaries-revenge.html
Hardly a good example since you said votes matter more than dissent.

Vote Up
Vote Down
-1

@no1marauder

I am curious about something. Before Trump and Netanyahu started this was with Iran did you believe Iran would nuke another country if they got nukes?
I just wanted the opinion of a democrat that doesn't like Trump.

Vote Up
2
Vote Down

@Metal-Brain said
@no1marauder

I am curious about something. Before Trump and Netanyahu started this was with Iran did you believe Iran would nuke another country if they got nukes?
I just wanted the opinion of a democrat that doesn't like Trump.
It's impossible to say. No country but the US has actually used nuclear weapons but that doesn't mean those that possess them would never use them under any circumstances.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down
-1

@no1marauder said
It's impossible to say. No country but the US has actually used nuclear weapons but that doesn't mean those that possess them would never use them under any circumstances.
Circumstances apply. I was not talking about any circumstance. I said before the war started. And I didn't mean any country.

That was when nobody else had them. And the aggressors both have nukes.
Do you think Iran would have used a nuke against the USA or Israel before they started this war? I am not talking about using it on a country that does not have nuclear weapons like Japan during WW2.

It is easy to nuke another nation if no other nation in the world has nukes.
After all, who is going to stop you if you have a monopoly on nukes?

Vote Up
2
Vote Down

@Metal-Brain said
Hardly a good example since you said votes matter more than dissent.
(Shrug) The Murkowski exception is only because she didn't have to run in a Republican primary; Alaska has open primaries. Trump recruited a Republican to run against her in 2022 but Murkowski narrowly won getting the majority of Democratic and Independent votes.

Vote Up
2
Vote Down

@Metal-Brain said
That was when nobody else had them. And the aggressors both have nukes.
Do you think Iran would have used a nuke against the USA or Israel before they started this war? I am not talking about using it on a country that does not have nuclear weapons like Japan during WW2.

It is easy to nuke another nation if no other nation in the world has nukes.
After all, who is going to stop you if you have monopoly on nukes?
No.

I don't think that Iran was actively pursuing a nuke anyway.

Vote Up
Vote Down
-1

@no1marauder said
(Shrug) The Murkowski exception is only because she didn't have to run in a Republican primary; Alaska has open primaries. Trump recruited a Republican to run against her in 2022 but Murkowski narrowly won getting the majority of Democratic and Independent votes.
Give it up. I only need one to prove you wrong.
You cannot undo that.

Vote Up
Vote Down
-1

@no1marauder said
No.

I don't think that Iran was actively pursuing a nuke anyway.
I agree.
It is only good for defense against another nuclear power.
Nuking first is suicidal.

Vote Up
2
Vote Down

@Metal-Brain said
Give it up. I only need one to prove you wrong.
You cannot undo that.
You really haven't. There were two caveats in my statement:

no1: It's still political suicide within the GOP to oppose Trump on virtually any issue nevermind support impeachment.

Those still render the statement accurate.

Vote Up
Vote Down
-1

@no1marauder said
You really haven't. There were two caveats in my statement:

no1: It's still political suicide within the GOP to oppose Trump on virtually any issue nevermind support impeachment.

Those still render the statement accurate.
No. Both are in the GOP and you said virtually any issue.
Take off your blue glasses.

Vote Up
2
Vote Down

@Metal-Brain said
No. Both are in the GOP and you said virtually any issue.
Take off your blue glasses.
This is a waste of time; the Alaska GOP censured Murkowski for her impeachment vote and ran an opponent against her who failed only because of the State's peculiar primary system.

Rand Paul hasn't done anything to actually significantly oppose Trump so he doesn't count as an exception. He strongly opposed both impeachments and even authored a motion to dismiss the second one.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down
-1

@no1marauder said
This is a waste of time; the Alaska GOP censured Murkowski for her impeachment vote and ran an opponent against her who failed only because of the State's peculiar primary system.

Rand Paul hasn't done anything to actually significantly oppose Trump so he doesn't count as an exception. He strongly opposed both impeachments and even authored a motion to dismiss the second one.
You are so dishonest. You moved the goal post from "oppose" to vote.
Now you are trying to move the goalpost again. And now you are resorting to whataboutism with Rand. The reasons for impeachment in Trump's first term were weak. He had good reason to vote against them.

edit: 10 republicans voted for Trump's impeachment. How many of them are still in office?

Vote Up
Vote Down
-1

@no1marauder said
Why waste time on something that can't possibly succeed? They'd be better off addressing the cost of living which was the #1 reason Democrats trounced Republicans this year. Measures to end the war (if it's still going on), reduce gas prices and get rid of Trump's tariffs should be the top issues that the new Congress should concentrate on.
Why should Rand Paul have wasted his time on something that could not possibly succeed? And voting for impeachment may have very well been political suicide for him. Again I ask you, how many of those 10 republicans that voted for impeachment are still in office?

I cannot tell you if Rand Paul would vote to impeach Trump now. You would have to ask him, but he might. He voted to end the Iran war. Remember?