Is there a Republican Civil War?

[Bob Juch]

Mike Pence is going right after Donald Trump in Arizona

(CNN)Mike Pence seems to have decided that the only way past Donald Trump is through Donald Trump.

Unlike many of Trump's would-be 2024 challengers, his former vice president is issuing a direct challenge by endorsing against him in critical races in states that were hotly contested in 2020.

Pence's latest move is an endorsement of Republican Karrin Taylor Robson in the Arizona governor's race.

"As Arizona Democrats pursue the reckless Biden-Harris agenda, Karrin Taylor Robson is the only candidate for Governor that will keep Arizona's border secure and streets safe, empower parents and create great schools, and promote conservative values," Pence said in a statement announcing the endorsement. (Robson has also been endorsed by outgoing Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, who has drawn Trump's ire for his refusal to overturn the 2020 election results in the state.)

That move puts Pence in direct opposition to Trump, who is supporting former local TV anchor Kari Lake in the state's August 2 primary. "Few can take on the Fake News Media like Kari," Trump said in announcing his endorsement last fall.

Lake has been one of the highest-profile backers of Trump's false election fraud claims. She has gone as far as to say it is "disqualifying" that Robson does not believe the election was stolen from Trump.

In an interview Sunday with CNN's Dana Bash, Ducey, who co-chairs the Republican Governors Association, was blunt in his assessment of Lake: "Kari Lake's misleading voters with no evidence," he said.

The move by Pence to endorse Robson is rightly understood then not as simply a rejection of a Trump-backed pick, but an attempt to affirm that the 2020 election was, in fact, free and fair. Pence and Trump are scheduled to hold dueling rallies on behalf of their preferred candidates in the state on Friday.

And this isn't the first time Pence has done something like this. He backed Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp in the spring, putting him, again, on the opposite side of Trump, who had recruited former Sen. David Perdue into the Republican primary. (Kemp, like Ducey, was repeatedly attacked by Trump for his refusal to overturn the 2020 results in his state.)

Campaigning with Kemp the day before the May 24 primary, Pence was clear about what he believed the vote meant. "When you say yes to Gov. Brian Kemp tomorrow, you will send a deafening message all across America that the Republican Party is the party of the future," Pence said.

Kemp crushed Perdue by more than 50 points.

It's a remarkable turn of events that Pence, more so than any other Republican considering the 2024 race, has emerged as the one willing to stand up to Trump and his election lies. (Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, for example, isn't getting involved in contested primaries outside of his state.)

After all, Pence spent four years as essentially Trump's wingman. At seemingly every bill signing, Pence was standing behind Trump, giving him an "attaboy, boss." At speech after speech in the White House, Pence was in the background, nodding along to the points Trump made. At one Cabinet meeting in 2017, Pence praised Trump every 12 seconds -- for three minutes straight.
So, what happened?

Well, January 6 happened. Trump engaged in an extended pressure campaign to try to get Pence to overturn the 2020 election results. And as Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide to White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, testified before the House select committee investigating January 6, Trump was apparently approving of the chants of "Hang Mike Pence" from the rioters storming the US Capitol that day.

That, you would think, changes someone.

Pence now seems to understand that the only way he has a political future in the GOP is to prove -- through a series of steps -- that Trump is less powerful than he is being made out to be.

The Kemp endorsement -- and the governor's primary victory -- put a crack in the Trump wall. Pence hopes Arizona will make that crack even bigger.

[flockofseagulls104]

You and CNN can hope so.

[tlynn78]

OR, and stay with me here, different people can have differing opinions! I know, I know. It's not what's being spoon-fed to you, so it couldn't possibly be, right?

[jarnon]

OR, and stay with me here, different people can have differing opinions! I know, I know. It's not what's being spoon-fed to you, so it couldn't possibly be, right?

Democrats are familiar with differences of opinion. (Ask two Democrats and you'll get three opinions.) I don't see much difference of opinion among these Republican candidates. (Maybe some nuances escape me.) However, Republicans do differ on facts (Did Biden win by fraud? Did Russia invade Ukraine?), and there is strong evidence that one set of facts is true and another is bogus.

[Appa23]

I would be willing to call Pence and Trump backing different candidates a “Republican Civil War” if Democrats are willing to call Gavin Newsom’s start of a campaign for 2024, against a sitting President who has not indicated that he would not be running again, to be a “Democratic Civil War”.

[Spock]

Jarnon>>>"Democrats are familiar with differences of opinion. (Ask two Democrats and you'll get three opinions.) "<<<

That's an old axiom that, while it may have been true at one time, I don't really think it is true anymore.

Really, ever since the wipeout of conservative Democrats in the 1994 elections, there hasn't been much difference in opinion among Democrats. There certainly isn't much difference here.

Jarnon>>>"However, Republicans do differ on facts (Did Biden win by fraud? Did Russia invade Ukraine?"<<<<

WTF is that? Other than among some far fringe somewhere, I don't think there is much disagreement as to whether or not Russia invaded Ukraine.

OTOH, people (including Republicans) have differing opinions on what to do about it.

[BackInTex]

Jarnon>>>"Democrats are familiar with differences of opinion. (Ask two Democrats and you'll get three opinions.) "<<<

That's an old axiom that, while it may have been true at one time, I don't really think it is true anymore.

Really, ever since the wipeout of conservative Democrats in the 1994 elections, there hasn't been much difference in opinion among Democrats. There certainly isn't much difference here.

Jarnon>>>"However, Republicans do differ on facts (Did Biden win by fraud? Did Russia invade Ukraine?"<<<<

WTF is that? Other than among some far fringe somewhere, I don't think there is much disagreement as to whether or not Russia invaded Ukraine.

OTOH, people (including Republicans) have differing opinions on what to do about it.

Or would that have invaded (that IS a given) had there been someone else in the White House? Opinions will differ on that.

[jarnon]

Jarnon>>>"Democrats are familiar with differences of opinion. (Ask two Democrats and you'll get three opinions.) "<<<

That's an old axiom that, while it may have been true at one time, I don't really think it is true anymore.

Really, ever since the wipeout of conservative Democrats in the 1994 elections, there hasn't been much difference in opinion among Democrats. There certainly isn't much difference here.

Jarnon>>>"However, Republicans do differ on facts (Did Biden win by fraud? Did Russia invade Ukraine?"<<<<

WTF is that? Other than among some far fringe somewhere, I don't think there is much disagreement as to whether or not Russia invaded Ukraine.

OTOH, people (including Republicans) have differing opinions on what to do about it.

Or would that have invaded (that IS a given) had there been someone else in the White House? Opinions will differ on that.

You're correct that it's just a few fringe Republicans.

Mitch McConnell: Republicans who support Putin ‘lonely voices’ in party

I'm relieved to know that. (Democrats have their oddballs too.) And there are valid differences of opinion on how Biden's responding.

[Bob78164]

Jarnon>>>"Democrats are familiar with differences of opinion. (Ask two Democrats and you'll get three opinions.) "<<<

That's an old axiom that, while it may have been true at one time, I don't really think it is true anymore.

Really, ever since the wipeout of conservative Democrats in the 1994 elections, there hasn't been much difference in opinion among Democrats. There certainly isn't much difference here.

Jarnon>>>"However, Republicans do differ on facts (Did Biden win by fraud? Did Russia invade Ukraine?"<<<<

WTF is that? Other than among some far fringe somewhere, I don't think there is much disagreement as to whether or not Russia invaded Ukraine.

OTOH, people (including Republicans) have differing opinions on what to do about it.

Or would that have invaded (that IS a given) had there been someone else in the White House? Opinions will differ on that.

You're correct that it's just a few fringe Republicans.

Mitch McConnell: Republicans who support Putin ‘lonely voices’ in party

I'm relieved to know that. (Democrats have their oddballs too.) And there are valid differences of opinion on how Biden's responding.

Results of the Maryland primary last night confirm that the Republican Party (as a whole) has been captured by its extreme right wing. Its nominee for Governor is bad enough. Look at who they nominated to be Attorney General.

There is no Democrat nominated for national or statewide office anywhere who is remotely comparable to those two. --Bob

[tlynn78]

Or would that have invaded (that IS a given) had there been someone else in the White House? Opinions will differ on that.

You're correct that it's just a few fringe Republicans.

Mitch McConnell: Republicans who support Putin ‘lonely voices’ in party

I'm relieved to know that. (Democrats have their oddballs too.) And there are valid differences of opinion on how Biden's responding.

Results of the Maryland primary last night confirm that the Republican Party (as a whole) has been captured by its extreme right wing. Its nominee for Governor is bad enough. Look at who they nominated to be Attorney General.

There is no Democrat nominated for national or statewide office anywhere who is remotely comparable to those two. --Bob

You just get more laughable every day. Seriously.

[Spock]

Jarnon>>>"Democrats are familiar with differences of opinion. (Ask two Democrats and you'll get three opinions.) "<<<

That's an old axiom that, while it may have been true at one time, I don't really think it is true anymore.

Really, ever since the wipeout of conservative Democrats in the 1994 elections, there hasn't been much difference in opinion among Democrats. There certainly isn't much difference here.

Jarnon>>>"However, Republicans do differ on facts (Did Biden win by fraud? Did Russia invade Ukraine?"<<<<

WTF is that? Other than among some far fringe somewhere, I don't think there is much disagreement as to whether or not Russia invaded Ukraine.

OTOH, people (including Republicans) have differing opinions on what to do about it.

Or would that have invaded (that IS a given) had there been someone else in the White House? Opinions will differ on that.

You're correct that it's just a few fringe Republicans.

Mitch McConnell: Republicans who support Putin ‘lonely voices’ in party

I'm relieved to know that. (Democrats have their oddballs too.) And there are valid differences of opinion on how Biden's responding.

Even in the linked Guardian article, I don't see that Cawthorn and Greene support Putin.

Cawthorn describing the Ukraine Government as evil does not necessarily translate to support for Putin. For example, I consider the Stalin government to be evil which does not mean I support Hitler.

It would seem to be a valid opinion to consider both the Ukraine and Russia governments as bad. Both are corrupt as hell.

Greene seems to be arguing against using financial resources to support the Ukrainian government in the war. A valid opinion, I would think. But it does not necessarily translate to support for Putin.

Or do we all have to march in lockstep and wear Ukrainian flag pins and use Ukraine hashtags?

[BackInTex]

You're correct that it's just a few fringe Republicans.

Mitch McConnell: Republicans who support Putin ‘lonely voices’ in party

I'm relieved to know that. (Democrats have their oddballs too.) And there are valid differences of opinion on how Biden's responding.

Results of the Maryland primary last night confirm that the Republican Party (as a whole) has been captured by its extreme right wing. Its nominee for Governor is bad enough. Look at who they nominated to be Attorney General.

There is no Democrat nominated for national or statewide office anywhere who is remotely comparable to those two. --Bob

You just get more laughable every day. Seriously.

Technically he is correct. They are all currently in office.

[BackInTex]

Cawthorn describing the Ukraine Government as evil does not necessarily translate to support for Putin.

Forget it Spock. You are talking at folks who can't understand "There are fine people on both sides." They look, and see, the worst possbile meaning in whatever a Republican (or conservative) says, and only the best possible meaning of what a Democrat says, completely ignoring what is in fact the truth.

They. Don't. Care.

[silverscreenselect]

You are talking at folks who can't understand "There are fine people on both sides."

The problem with the "there are fine people on both sides" theory is that nobody has ever found an example of any of the "fine people" on the right-wing side of the rally in Charlottesville.

[silverscreenselect]

Cawthorn describing the Ukraine Government as evil does not necessarily translate to support for Putin.

Cawthorn went a lot further, and his comments were picked up on Russian television along with those of Tucker Carlson. Here's what Cawthorn said:

Remember that Zelensky is a thug, Remember that the Ukrainian government is incredibly corrupt and is incredibly evil and has been pushing woke ideologies.

I'm not sure exactly what "woke ideologies" the Ukrainian government is pushing unless it's not rolling over and surrendering to Putin. Of course, to the Cawthorns and Greenes of the world, "woke" is shorthand for anything they don't like that seems the faintest bit liberal.

[BackInTex]

You are talking at folks who can't understand "There are fine people on both sides."

The problem with the "there are fine people on both sides" theory is that nobody has ever found an example of any of the "fine people" on the right-wing side of the rally in Charlottesville.

Because your definition of "fine people" is "those that agree with me".

[silverscreenselect]

You are talking at folks who can't understand "There are fine people on both sides."

The problem with the "there are fine people on both sides" theory is that nobody has ever found an example of any of the "fine people" on the right-wing side of the rally in Charlottesville.

Because your definition of "fine people" is "those that agree with me".

No, my definition is people who came to conduct a peaceful demonstration in support of the Confederate statues. I've yet to find one such person. I have asked Flock this question several times and he's ignored me. Right wingers keep saying there were peaceful protestors, but there doesn't seem to be any record of them.

[BackInTex]

The problem with the "there are fine people on both sides" theory is that nobody has ever found an example of any of the "fine people" on the right-wing side of the rally in Charlottesville.

Because your definition of "fine people" is "those that agree with me".

No, my definition is people who came to conduct a peaceful demonstration in support of the Confederate statues. I've yet to find one such person. I have asked Flock this question several times and he's ignored me. Right wingers keep saying there were peaceful protestors, but there doesn't seem to be any record of them.

That's BS. There were a lot of folks standing peacefully (much more so than the peaceful you say the BLM protests were).

[Bob78164]

You are talking at folks who can't understand "There are fine people on both sides."

The problem with the "there are fine people on both sides" theory is that nobody has ever found an example of any of the "fine people" on the right-wing side of the rally in Charlottesville.

Because your definition of "fine people" is "those that agree with me".

He's got you there, Steve. I'm assuming he's correct that you think that to qualify as "fine people," people need to agree with you that slavery was evil, that the Confederacy was evil, that its supporters were traitors (as well as losers), and that none of them deserve to be honored for their work in attempting to preserve the Confederacy. --Bob

[BackInTex]

The problem with the "there are fine people on both sides" theory is that nobody has ever found an example of any of the "fine people" on the right-wing side of the rally in Charlottesville.

Because your definition of "fine people" is "those that agree with me".

He's got you there, Steve. I'm assuming he's correct that you think that to qualify as "fine people," people need to agree with you that slavery was evil, that the Confederacy was evil, that its supporters were traitors (as well as losers), and that none of them deserve to be honored for their work in attempting to preserve the Confederacy. --Bob

and don't forget folks that don't think a man can get pregnant and hurt the feelings of men who think they can by saying so.

[silverscreenselect]

He's got you there, Steve. I'm assuming he's correct that you think that to qualify as "fine people," people need to agree with you that slavery was evil, that the Confederacy was evil, that its supporters were traitors (as well as losers), and that none of them deserve to be honored for their work in attempting to preserve the Confederacy. --Bob

No, I don't. I mean people conducting a peaceful protest without waving Klan and Nazi flags and wearing combat gear and chanting racist slogans. Since everybody is so excited about posting everything they do on social media, there should be plenty of "here's Grandma and me and the other daughters of the Confederacy at the Charlottesville protest" posts. But there aren't. Because the people who showed up were looking for trouble and they caused it. I've yet to see any documentary evidence of any of them being present in Charlottesville. And I would think that the people who have been pushing the "fine people on both sides" nonsense would have lots of photos of those peaceful protestors to prove their point.

[Spock]

Cawthorn describing the Ukraine Government as evil does not necessarily translate to support for Putin.

Cawthorn went a lot further, and his comments were picked up on Russian television along with those of Tucker Carlson. Here's what Cawthorn said:

Remember that Zelensky is a thug, Remember that the Ukrainian government is incredibly corrupt and is incredibly evil and has been pushing woke ideologies.

I'm not sure exactly what "woke ideologies" the Ukrainian government is pushing unless it's not rolling over and surrendering to Putin. Of course, to the Cawthorns and Greenes of the world, "woke" is shorthand for anything they don't like that seems the faintest bit liberal.

Still don't see where pointing out problems with the Ukraine government translates to support for Putin.

In your view, is the Ukraine government pure as the wind-driven snow?

Substitute "Contras" for "Ukraine" and I suspect that you had absolutely no problem with the Soviets using any of the anti-contra statements made by Democrat members of Congress.

[flockofseagulls104]

He's got you there, Steve. I'm assuming he's correct that you think that to qualify as "fine people," people need to agree with you that slavery was evil, that the Confederacy was evil, that its supporters were traitors (as well as losers), and that none of them deserve to be honored for their work in attempting to preserve the Confederacy. --Bob

No, I don't. I mean people conducting a peaceful protest without waving Klan and Nazi flags and wearing combat gear and chanting racist slogans. Since everybody is so excited about posting everything they do on social media, there should be plenty of "here's Grandma and me and the other daughters of the Confederacy at the Charlottesville protest" posts. But there aren't. Because the people who showed up were looking for trouble and they caused it. I've yet to see any documentary evidence of any of them being present in Charlottesville. And I would think that the people who have been pushing the "fine people on both sides" nonsense would have lots of photos of those peaceful protestors to prove their point.

Once and for all:
Did President Trump call neo-Nazis “very fine people” during a famous press conference following the Charlottesville riots of August 2017? The major media reported that he did. But what if their reporting is wrong? Worse, what if their reporting is wrong and they know it’s wrong? A straight exploration of the facts should reveal the truth. That’s what CNN political analyst Steve Cortes does in this critically important video.

https://www.prageru.com/video/what-happ ... ottesville

Trump said, “You also had people that were very fine people on both sides.” Fifty seconds later (I watched an unedited video) he says, “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally, but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people, but you also had troublemakers and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats – you had a lot of bad people in the other group too.”

https://patriotbites.com/debunking-the- ... ranscript/

https://thefederalist.com/2017/08/17/tr ... ost-minds/

The MSM's pushing of one sentence of what Trump said, and the reason that Biden said he decided to run, are ALL LIES.

Why is there a lack of video of peaceful protesters on both sides? Why the hell do you think? Who's going to take video other than the extremists? There have been several such statue removals in the US, and there have been people there at every one of them that were against it. And furthermore, based on what has taken place over the past several years, I wouldn't put it past Youtube and the other biased outlets to delete any such video.

[silverscreenselect]

Why is there a lack of video of peaceful protesters on both sides? Why the hell do you think? Who's going to take video other than the extremists? There have been several such statue removals in the US, and there have been people there at every one of them that were against it. And furthermore, based on what has taken place over the past several years, I wouldn't put it past Youtube and the other biased outlets to delete any such video.

You're obviously unfamiliar with how social media works. People post pictures of themselves all the time, especially when they take trips. They take videos as well. For the record, that's how the police have caught a number of the January 6 rioters, because they were dumb enough to post pictures of themselves at the scene. So despite the desire of everybody in the world to post pictures of themselves all the time, not a single picture or video of these so-called very fine people has surfaced. They don't just use YouTube. They post things on Facebook and Twitter and Instagram and Tik Tok (I'm not sure if TikTok was around in 2017). All those peaceful protestors, all those very fine people, and not one single photo or video of them....

Now according to Prager University, there were a number of peaceful protestors and it was only those few white nationalist rowdies who made trouble. And when Donald Trump said that those very fine people had been treated unfairly, you'd think that some of them would have backed him up by showing what fine, upstanding peaceful protestors they were. Then let's see someone, somewhere with some proof of that. (And Flock, Dennis Prager's stick figure drawings of the "very fine people" isn't proof.)

[Estonut]

So despite the desire of everybody in the world to post pictures of themselves all the time, ...

How many have YOU posted? Where are they? By your logic, YOU don't exist!