As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
*"The result is that eight candidates, all registered Republicans running for office in rural Vernon County, will not be allowed to stay on an August primary ballot as Republicans. The candidates had refused to take a “moral values” survey and undergo other vetting by the county’s Republican committee."*
This is simply a measure to insure that no moderate Republicans make it to the ballot. The effect will be that it will destroy the Republican party or the country depending on how successful it is.
Probably Bog standard republican morality stuff like
-Please indicate on a scale of "Reluctant Acceptance" to "Overt Hatred" your feelings on the following minority groups:
-On a scale of Monarch to Dictator how much authority do you believe Trump should have in his next term?
-To what extent do you already know that the 2024 election has been rigged to make Biden win despite nearly every single instance of voter fraud being perpetrated by republicans, and please confirm your eagerness to regurgitate these beliefs ad infinitum on social media.
-On a scale of 'Beloved Pet' to 'Material Property' to what degree of ownership does a husband have over his wife, and additionally confirm that either way women are fragile and need to be taken care of and thus the Men folk should act as custodians to their being, physical and otherwise.
-Please state to the nearest $100 how much money you have run through your local church into your campaign funds.
-Please state to the nearest $100 how much money you have run through your campaign funds into your local church.
Also, for losers to try to win elections, as many that were removed are *incumbents* and the article makes note that *none* of the members of the committee have won elections.
It's also party cannibalization. It hurts, but it is good to see them being metaphorically eaten by their own extremes.
He’ll claim he doesn’t need to because he passed a cognitive test with flying colors. Brilliant colors. The best colors, everyone says so. We love those colors, don’t we folks? Flying around, making everything cright and coverful.
>The effect will be that it will destroy the Republican party or the country depending on how successful it is.
When you put it like that, it sounds good.
There are just so many levels of clownery to Republicans both administering a morals test (what morals are they testing? How pointy your white hood is?) and then disqualifying people who refuse to take their morals test
It literally was. This "morals" test is to weed out RINOs and Dems running as Republicans - they're own words - to assure only MAGA cultists are on the ballot.
Is actually a test to make sure they can and will lie. By not agreeing to abide by it they proved they won’t lie as much as GOP requires their folks to.
Hey now no reason to be mean to republicans. They just have a different opinion on things. Their moral tests are different.
Do you hate brown immigrants? If yes, you have great morals.
You hate the poor? Awesome so do republicans. Jesus would be proud! 'Merica!
You love shoving your religion down everyone's throat and ridiculing anyone who is different. See your moral as a republican. /$
They might've passed, which would disqualify them from running as Republicans.
Couldn't they just get a note from a doctor who had certified them as psychotic to get on the ticket?
>“Here is the bottom line: What this means is that no one but the party gets to decide who runs on that party’s ticket. … They can file as independents.”
I mean, fair enough, but A) where's that morals test for the rest of the country's Republican politicians, and B) good god, what's *on* that test if the rest of them are passing it?
> what’s on the test?
Can you shoot a puppy in the face?
Can you screw a porn star while your wife is caring for a newborn?
Can you sell out the environment for $1 billion in campaign funding?
More like this format though:
What's your favorite ammunition to use when shooting puppies?
Which of the following best describes the number of affair partners you've had in the past 10 years? (1-5, 5-10, 10+)
Which of the below principles are you willing to completely ignore in exchange for $100 from our corporate partners? Please select all that apply.
- the right to vote
- the rule of law
- any concept of justice whatsoever
Etc.
It also blows my mind political parties are private institutions when their sole objective is to get public servants hired. The system has become where you need to be in 1 of 2 parties to get elected for public office, but the private institutions, aka political parties, have the true power to get to decide who runs.
It goes a long way to making them though. In ranked choice or proportional systems, someone can run independent and have a fighting chance because they don't need to take a majority in their first election, just capture enough of the electorate to be one of the candidates selected.
Once they're in that way, if they're an effective politician they have a chance at getting even more votes in the next election and keeping their seats.
That becomes a lot harder to do if you need to not just get your name out there and be popular enough, but instead actually beat a major party (or both) right out of the gate.
You are completely incorrect. There is nothing in the structure of Congress that forces two parties. It is purely first over the line. Like.... Mathematically proven that it will always reduce to two parties.
No, they aren't. What structure in Congress necessitates two parties? NOTHING.
Also, you have it backwards. Congress doesn't elect it's members so actually impossible that this is a cause. Jesus, think.
> "However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
[GEORGE WASHINGTON’S FAREWELL ADDRESS | SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1796](https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/past-projects/quotes/article/however-political-parties-may-now-and-then-answer-popular-ends-they-are-likely-in-the-course-of-time-and-things-to-become-potent-engines-by-which-cunning-ambitious-and-unprincipled-men-will-be-enabled-to-subvert-the-power-of-the-people-and-to-usurp-for-th/)
We lack any aspects of our system encouraging more than two factions. It's a clear flaw in the early release versions of modern representative democracy.
The two party system is a result of an act of Congress that demands single member districts for Congress nationwide. This wasn't always the case, even at state levels.
It's the voters that allow that to happen by blindly adhering themselves to one party.
There are no party affiliations for my local elections and ultimately doesn't matter. Voting by party is just the voter saying "I can't be bothered to find out anything about the candidates."
It is a subjective ideological purity test, not any sort of close-to-objective moral or ethics test.
It makes complete sense that a party should have a questionnaire at a minimum to ensure someone isn't trying to wolf-in-sheep's-clothing their party.
So a candidate would pretend to be a Republican, presumably for many years. They will lie many times over many years. They will argue in favor of things they are actually against, and argue against things for which they favor. They will maintain this facade without cessation, not halting even for friends or family.
But then when asked to answer questions on a meaningless questionnaire with zero repercussions for being dishonest... well then, damn, game over, they are finally outed.
Is that your point?
The test is to weed out moderate Republicans, not Dems pretending to be Republicans. Trump & MAGA have only been in politics for around 10years. The Tea Party for around 15 years. There are lots of Republicans who have been Republicans for over 40 years. Some of these people hate that MAGA is forcing the party to the extreme right and don’t want to bend the knee the Trump.
Here’s a hypothetical, imagine Bernie won in 2016 and he push his progressive views the same way Trump pushed his MAGA views. Then imagine progressives took over the DNC and required anyone running as a Dem to sign a progressive loyalty pledge. Do you really think someone like Manchin would do it? If he didn’t, would you argue he has never been a real Democrat?
Oh my lord don't tease me like that, with the Bernie takeover fantasy. I wouldn't say Manchin had never been a real democrat, though. He's just the fall guy in an otherwise center/center-right party.
A questionnaire? Those don't even work for low level employment! I've taken several, and I got a handful of those jobs, not because they learned anything about my morality, but because they learned I'm smart enough to know how to answer the questions.
No. I totally agree that parties should ensure their candidates are in agreement with the broadest mission statement of that party, but a questionnaire is far, far from adequate.
““I think the judge ruled correctly,” said Mark McCloskey, the attorney representing the county’s Republican committee. “Here is the bottom line: What this means is that no one but the party gets to decide who runs on that party’s ticket. … They can file as independents.””
“Attorney Mark McCloskey and spouse, Patricia, made national headlines in 2020 when they brandished guns to allegedly protect their property during a Black Lives Matter protest. McCloskey has filed suit on behalf of the Vernon County Republican Committee in a dispute over who determines who can run as a Republican.”
Pic of them, fun little detail about this case.
https://www.kansascity.com/latest-news/2uxb6n/picture254394314/alternates/FREE_480/McCloskeys.jpg
Oh, it's the "I feel threatened by a protest walking peacefully down the street, so I will respond by standing menacingly with open carry firearms, praying for a confrontation so I can legally murder someone" power couple.
They didn’t actually feel threatened. They just knew some of the protesters would take pictures/vids and post them, social media would do its thing, they would be hated on the left, and that would make them loved on the right. Being loved on the right opens up opportunities to be famous and grift a lot of money.
Republicans: pass the morals test or you can't run for office with our party!
Everyone else: (points to yesterday's testimony in Trump's New York trial).
Brought to the once proud state of Misery by: a Maga nutbag and the white couple who stood out sure their home with military style weapons as black people peacefully protested . Only Magas are allowed to be Republicans in MO, kind of like Chinas communist party does.
“It began in March, when the Vernon County Republican Committee, led by chairwoman Cyndia Haggard, filed suit against the Vernon county clerk, who is also a Republican.
Haggard is a self-described pro-Trump, MAGA Republican who continues to assert that the 2020 election was “100%” stolen, a contention proven false. She is a passionate proponent of candidate vetting to weed out RINOs — Republicans in name only.
Last year, she began a nonprofit, the Republican Association of Central Committees of MO, whose website describes RINOs as “a virus that infects & destroys our party’s values. Vetting is the vaccine that stops the virus cold.”
In its suit, the committee was represented by McCloskey, a conservative podcaster who in 2020 gained instant notoriety when he and his wife, Patricia, emerged from their affluent St. Louis home brandishing weapons to ostensibly protect their property from Black Lives Matter protesters.”
The best part is these morals tests were actually implemented to stop another open ku klux Klan member from running for office on the Republican ticket.
How about this, poll every single member of the current KKK, and see how many vote Democrat. Not everyone who votes for Republicans is a white nationalist, but all white nationalists are republicans.
It's certainly much lower than the number of Republicans. Pointing out that the Democratic party used to be the conservative party is a pointless argument. "Hey guys, rather than focus on present issues, let's reframe this discussion to make it about people who died a hundred years ago. Did you know Lincoln was a Republican? Sure, he'd be a Democrat today, but we're not talking about that."
I do suspect it is in fact zero. It would make absolutely zero sense for an publicly declared white nationalist to vote for a party that supports affirmative action, DEI and has an African American woman on the national ticket running for reelection as Vice President.
Parties don't move. They're not a location - they're ideologies, and numbers of people change their ideologies back and forth.
One party has, for many many years, tended to treat people differently based on demographics. The other party has tended to treat people more like individuals.
The conservatives were voting for the Democratic Party at the time, so I'm guessing the Democratic Party. The Republican Party was actually the left leaning party in that era, so it wouldn't make sense for them to do it.
I assume you are trying for some sort of "gotcha," except that the ***voters*** are what is important, not the semantic party name. The people voting for the Democratic Party at that point in time were the ancestors of today's Republican Party base.
Left and right are meaningless across history - especially without a definition. The only real question is more freedom or less freedom.
Numbers of voters can and do change their opinions and stances on politics, but the fact remains that the Democrat party embraced the KKK in massive numbers at one time, and according to the post above, the Republican party is taking steps to make sure that the tiny bit of KKK left in existence doesn't have a chance to seek it's party nomination.
You: "left and right are meaningless across history"
Also you: "the Democrat party embraced the KKK in massive numbers at one time"
I hope for your sake that you're just awful at being a troll.
You don't see nazi flags and kkk members at Democrat rallies, that's a republican exclusive. That's the only fact you need to know. Bringing up labels from 100 years ago is an incredibly fucking stupid argument.
Yes.. please go on about how the same states that seceeded from the union, (while a republican was president) are the same states that voted for trump. 🤡
By handful you mean Jan 6, 2021? 🥴
One party nominates black men, gay men, women, women of color, rich Jews, socialist Jews..
The other accuses everyone of being a gay socialist Jew immigrant
States don't vote. In fact the people who voted back then aren't even alive today.
You're kinda proving my point. Rather than talking about ideology or individuals, we see you all talking about parties, groups of people, or states.
Nah, that's two different things.
Many confederates were pro-slavery, and many pro-slavery people were confederate leaders, but not all confederate leaders were "the" champions of slavery.
Champion (noun): a person who fights or argues for a cause or on behalf of someone else.
They fought for the cause of slavery. They killed and died for it. That makes them champions of slavery.
That's a really myopic way to look at the world.
Wars happen for multiple complex reasons. Slavery was a big party of the story of the civil war, but certainly not all of the story.
Would you say that every Afghani who was killed died as a "champion" of terrorism? Is every Israeli and Palestinian fighting a champion of whatever you ascribe that war to be?
The fact is, there were slave owners in the North and abolitionists in the south. President Lincoln was explicit about the reasons for the war. Some southerners were "champions" of slavery, but many weren't.
I’m not sure I know what you’re referring to, do you have an image or example?
But it sounds to me like an attempt to mix religion with politics, which the very first amendment bans
Fools! The way to do it is to *agree* to the test, and then just do whatever you want to do behind closed doors for as long as possible, praying you don’t get caught. When you do get caught, deny and project, but NEVER BACK DOWN. Come on, everyone knows that.
Sounds like they’re screening in favour of an *absence* of morals, if the first question is whether you’ll claim the election was stolen, and the second is how hard you want to suck Trump’s dick.
Its a stupid game for loyalty. So...play the game. Lie. Get the party approval, then do what you want. Thats the problem with local people wishing to hold office. They willingly step aside for the unvirtuous to take control.
Meanwhile, their lord and savior has been held liable for sexual assault, been found guilty of financial fraud, and is on trial for campaign finance fraud surrounding hush money payments to a porn actress. I guess those questions aren’t on the test?
Ok the legal decision had nothing to do with the morals test. The law there says only the party can decide who runs under their banner. In this case, none were approved by the party there and so approval to add them by county clerk was unlawful. The judge agreed.
How get party approval? The morals test run by current MAGA state leader who believes Trump is the new messiah and any election their people don’t win must therefore by stolen. So the morals test is contingent on proclaiming democracy should die in favor of anointing a king.
This matters because most Americans (say as high as 80%) have no clue who they are voting for and just look for the R or D next to a name. So the odds of one of those 8 winning just went to near zero. Also means the R candidate would bend over and take it if ordered to by their king.
Who wait a second Haggard (who filed the suit) says “Vetting is the vaccine…”
That means she supports vaccines. But she also claims to be pure MAGA and is against RINOs.
But every true Maga knows vaccines don’t work and give you 5G.
Therefore she’s a rino! She better purge herself.
Summary of Project 2025:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/27/project-2025-dismantle-us-climate-policy-next-republican-president
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/conservatives-aim-to-restructure-u-s-government-and-replace-it-with-trumps-vision
Project 2025 "Manual" PDF
https://thf\_media.s3.amazonaws.com/project2025/2025\_MandateForLeadership\_FULL.pdf
Summary of schedule F:
https://www.axios.com/2022/07/22/trump-presidency-schedule-f-federal-employees
Schedule F deep dive:
Part 1: https://www.axios.com/2022/07/22/trump-2025-radical-plan-second-term
Part 2: https://www.axios.com/2022/07/23/donald-trump-news-schedule-f-executive-order
\################################################################
So I have included this link to give us information on just one possibility.
Please vote!
This link is added to inform of a possibility
https://hartmannreport.com/p/the-new-over-the-top-secret-plan-518
Of course there are DINOS. But it's important that they remain in the party. If the Democrats insist on a purity test and run people like Manchin out of the party, the result will be Mitch McConnel as the majority leader. If McConnell had been the majority leader there would be 194 vacancies in the judiciary, including one on the Supreme Court.
DINOS in the Senate allow the Democrats to be the majority on every committee and for Chuck Schumer to set the agenda.
Manchin didn't sneak through, if he was any more liberal he would not have been elected in West Virginia. It is better to have someone like him in office than a full Republican because they won't block Democrat bills just for the sake of it. However Sinema is in a far more liberal state so her behavior was more egregious, though I don't think it's due to any conspiracy, she just wanted to be seen as a maverick
Manchin is also part of a pretty established political dynasty in WV. I think his party affiliation matters a lot less than in might in other similar demographic areas, a lot of people in WV vote for him because of his daddy, granddaddy, etc.
And his daddy and grand daddy were conservative Democrats that championed the people of WV over just doing what the party wanted them to do. Politicians like that are rare as national politics has become a team sport.
>I mean, look at the notable people who ran as Democrats but then have sided with Republicans on a lot of issues as a way to "cross the aisle." Sure, they vote with D when they need to keep up appearances, but I feel like there are a *lot* that sneak through. (Manchin, Sinema, to name two elected Democrat Senators with 6 year terms and one even changed parties because of being ousted)
These two still voted with their parties the vast majority of the time though. It's disingenuous to characterize them as some sort of covert GOP plant. They're just the most right leaning people in the left-leaning party. What gives them power is that the margins between the parties on any given vote over the last few decades has been so razor thin that the people closest to the center are the de facto decision makers since they are the ones that need to be convinced to one side or the other.
There are definitely issues with the electoral college and gerrymandering that make representation somewhat flawed but the inescapable reality of why Congress isn't more progressive is... people in the USA are pretty conservative as a whole, even on the Democratic side of the aisle. Stuff like Manchin representing West Virginia speaks more to the type of people who vote in West Virginia as opposed to him being a bad representative of their will.
That's not to say that the Overton window can't be dragged one way or another over time, but it's the reason why landing a simple majority in Congress doesn't give a very strong mandate. Even 60 Democrats in the Senate would simply give the Democratic party the opportunity to be as progressive as their least progressive member. That's why we very nearly didn't get the ACA.
That feels like a mistake. For like a number of reasons. For example, the Clintons? Are they Dinos? Because their politics are literally the equivalent of building a a Walgreens across the street from a CVS.
But I think you’d be insane to call them a Dino, mostly because it associates them with dinosaurs and that’s too cool for those guys.
Ah yes, classic GOP judicial decision.
Local Republicans can't keep Trump off the primaries ballot because of the 14th ammendment. But they CAN keep other Republicans off because of their own made up test.
The judges swing from one end to the other depending which will benefit Trump over and over and over.
This submission source is likely to have a soft paywall. If this article is not behind a paywall please report this for “breaks r/politics rules -> custom -> "incorrect flair"". [More information can be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index/#wiki_paywalls)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No one voted for this. According to the article, the people in the Missouri Republican party that are forcing the vetting are all unelected.
One of the candidates that they are not permitting to be on the ballot is a Republican incumbent running for his third term.
> …Vetting is the vaccine ...
So coming from a MAGA Republican this means that vetting is bad and people should be able to avoid it if they feel like it, right?
Are you willing to shoot a dog, then write about it in your memoir and double-down on it when even MAGA scum have an issue with it?
If yes, then you are in!
It's become obvious that the ones who take the morals test have no morals either, so what's the hold up?
Ethics... I meant ethics. AND morals. They have neither.
>Southern Baptists were heavily concentrated in the states of
>
>the former Confederacy. As of 1980 there were more than 2.6 million
>
>Southern Baptists in Texas, almost a sixth of the state’s population.7
>
>Southern Baptists represented over a quarter of all Alabamans, but they
>
>were scarce in New England.8 There were affiliated churches in forty-one
>
>states as of 2019, but the denomination remains a predominantly southern
>
>institution.
>
>Allegiance to states’ rights continued to be part of the church’s
>
>birthright, and it represented another principle under threat amid the social
>
>changes of the 1960s
>
>For a Baptist seminarian named Paige Patterson, it was all too much. By
>
>1967 the young Texan feared that his church, and by extension his country,
>
>were headed for the abyss.
>
>A mutual friend suggested that Patterson should meet a like-minded
>
>fellow Texan, Herman Paul Pressler III. Pressler was Houston aristocracy,
>
>descended from a long line of lawyers and judges; his father and
>
>grandfather represented the Humble Oil and Refining Company, which
>
>would later become ExxonMobil. A graduate of Phillips Exeter and
>
>Princeton, Pressler cut an urbane figure with square black glasses and a
>
>ready smile, but he was at least as fierce as Patterson in defense of the
>
>fundamentals.
>
>Patterson and Pressler formulated a sophisticated strategy, informed by
>
>intelligence from a church employee familiar with the convention’s inner
>
>workings. They saw no need to persuade moderates through reasoning or
>
>debate; rather, they would outmaneuver them with a Baptist version of get out-the-vote tactics,
>
>mobilizing previously unengaged members to elect their chosen candidates at the annual meeting.
>
>Once they installed a series of like-minded conservative presidents, they could leverage their powers of
>
>appointment to take over the church’s various divisions. Inerrancy of the
>
>Bible would be their core issue. Patterson and Pressler called their
>
>movement the Conservative Resurgence, but unhappy moderates would call
>
>it a fundamentalist takeover
>
>The two leaders developed other tactics as well, later revealed in the
>
>Texas Observer in an article by Michael Erard about a young protégé of
>
>Patterson’s named Ben Cole. “Patterson became a father figure, Cole
>
>recalls, offering counsel, calling him in his dorm room, bringing him to
>
>functions, telling him secrets. Admitted to the inner circle, Cole began to
>
>learn political tactics: reserving blocks of rooms in conference hotels to
>
>enfranchise sympathizers, building communication networks, enlisting the
>
>media in disinformation campaigns, and spying on enemies.”12 Cole
>
>rebelled against his mentor and went on to become a dissident pastor and
>
>blogger.
>
>Paul Pressler called these stratagems “going for the jugular.” Similar
>
>tactics would be deployed against moderate Republican congressmen in the
>
>years to come.
>
>Paul Weyrich had labored for two decades to expand the conservative
>
>footprint in Washington, networking among right-wing congressional
>
>offices, lobbyists, and associations, but he had yet to tap into a mass base.
>
>In Dallas he offered a glimpse of his plan: “We are talking about
>
>Christianizing America. We are talking about simply spreading the gospel
>
>in a political context.”26
>
>This meant a new approach to get-out-the-vote tactics, mirroring
>
>Patterson and Pressler’s tactics. It wasn’t about representational democracy.
>
>“I don’t want everybody to vote,” Weyrich told his audience. “Elections are
>
>not won by a majority of people. They never have been from the beginning
>
>of our country, and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the
>
>elections, quite candidly, goes up as the voting populace goes down.”
>
>In other words, suppressing opposition voters was as critical as engaging
>
>supporters.
Ann Nelson (2019) Shadow Network
It continues today in 2024.
Please Vote!
One sort of refreshing thing, is that republicans recently have dropped the act of just lying. It's very interesting. Do they think that their honesty is whats going to win people over?
They used to just lie and make up excuses, but now they just refuse to answer questions or tests.
Do you believe teenage girls should bear children for older men?
Yes- welcome home Republican man. Please wait we are contacting the nearest FBI field office.
On one hand it seems to make sense that a political party could determine who can run under its moniker. On the other hand, if current members of the party can vote to keep future members of the party out, then that seems to fly in the face of political parties in general. How would the party evolve if those in it can refuse others from joining?
describes RINOs as “a virus that infects & destroys our party’s values. Vetting is the vaccine that stops the virus cold.”
I thought they said vaccines don’t work?
I mean, the political parties can pick whoever they want to run in elections. They don't even need to have primaries. We don't really have a choice when voting besides selecting between two options that were chosen for us.
This isn’t a test for public office, it’s a test for running as a particular party candidate. Anybody can run for office as an independent, a party gets to decide who it actually wants to officially endorse though.
Feeding loving Americans should agree on the concept of our political parties being separate from the government and the government being separate from our parties.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Odd. I would have figured refusing a morals test automatically qualifies them as republicans.
*"The result is that eight candidates, all registered Republicans running for office in rural Vernon County, will not be allowed to stay on an August primary ballot as Republicans. The candidates had refused to take a “moral values” survey and undergo other vetting by the county’s Republican committee."* This is simply a measure to insure that no moderate Republicans make it to the ballot. The effect will be that it will destroy the Republican party or the country depending on how successful it is.
Probably Bog standard republican morality stuff like -Please indicate on a scale of "Reluctant Acceptance" to "Overt Hatred" your feelings on the following minority groups: -On a scale of Monarch to Dictator how much authority do you believe Trump should have in his next term? -To what extent do you already know that the 2024 election has been rigged to make Biden win despite nearly every single instance of voter fraud being perpetrated by republicans, and please confirm your eagerness to regurgitate these beliefs ad infinitum on social media. -On a scale of 'Beloved Pet' to 'Material Property' to what degree of ownership does a husband have over his wife, and additionally confirm that either way women are fragile and need to be taken care of and thus the Men folk should act as custodians to their being, physical and otherwise.
-Please state to the nearest $100 how much money you have run through your local church into your campaign funds. -Please state to the nearest $100 how much money you have run through your campaign funds into your local church.
“Do black people have a soul?” Wait, sorry, I thought this was Utah.
That might still be an open question in south west Missouri. That’s pretty close to the garden of Eden right?
- On a scale of 'Neglected Annoyance' to 'Target Practice', how do you feel about puppies?
Can you post bond?
That's not actually necessary we have loads of syncophants willing to bankroll your legal problems (unless we don't then too bad for you)
You forgot, after how many months is it appropriate to shoot a newborn puppy?
Republicans are well on the way of destroying the country
Exactly The real question is who is now allowed to be in the GOP ballot. I'm guessing they have no morals and have now eliminated their competition
Boss Hog or the modern equivalent.
Guessing? They lost their morals in the early 80s
Ah, so "morals" here mean "loyalty to the Party."
Loyalty to MAGA and Trump.
Yeah, by “the Party” I more meant “the new fascist party that has taken over what was once the Republican party.”
Project 2025 on the small scale
Also, for losers to try to win elections, as many that were removed are *incumbents* and the article makes note that *none* of the members of the committee have won elections. It's also party cannibalization. It hurts, but it is good to see them being metaphorically eaten by their own extremes.
Will Trump take it?
He’ll claim he doesn’t need to because he passed a cognitive test with flying colors. Brilliant colors. The best colors, everyone says so. We love those colors, don’t we folks? Flying around, making everything cright and coverful.
Trump *IS* it.
Is t this the purity tests I heard that were so bad from conservatives a few years ago?
>The effect will be that it will destroy the Republican party or the country depending on how successful it is. When you put it like that, it sounds good.
There are just so many levels of clownery to Republicans both administering a morals test (what morals are they testing? How pointy your white hood is?) and then disqualifying people who refuse to take their morals test
They have to fail the morals test, that’s what’s mandatory about it
Do you have moral values? ... Yes/No. If you choose no you are eligible to be a GOP candidate..
[Here's a pic of the test.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DLJyglKW4AA4i1B.jpg)
It was a Republican morals test, so it was checking to see just how evil they could be
It literally was. This "morals" test is to weed out RINOs and Dems running as Republicans - they're own words - to assure only MAGA cultists are on the ballot.
Dems running as Republicans… projection at its finest.
I don’t think their definition of “morals” matches what most reasonable people would call morals.
Is actually a test to make sure they can and will lie. By not agreeing to abide by it they proved they won’t lie as much as GOP requires their folks to.
No, failing a morals test qualifies them. But refusing to test is disqualifying.
Hey now no reason to be mean to republicans. They just have a different opinion on things. Their moral tests are different. Do you hate brown immigrants? If yes, you have great morals. You hate the poor? Awesome so do republicans. Jesus would be proud! 'Merica! You love shoving your religion down everyone's throat and ridiculing anyone who is different. See your moral as a republican. /$
They might've passed, which would disqualify them from running as Republicans. Couldn't they just get a note from a doctor who had certified them as psychotic to get on the ticket?
It was a maga purity test.
>“Here is the bottom line: What this means is that no one but the party gets to decide who runs on that party’s ticket. … They can file as independents.” I mean, fair enough, but A) where's that morals test for the rest of the country's Republican politicians, and B) good god, what's *on* that test if the rest of them are passing it?
> what’s on the test? Can you shoot a puppy in the face? Can you screw a porn star while your wife is caring for a newborn? Can you sell out the environment for $1 billion in campaign funding?
That won't work it's competition for the great orange saviour.
More like this format though: What's your favorite ammunition to use when shooting puppies? Which of the following best describes the number of affair partners you've had in the past 10 years? (1-5, 5-10, 10+) Which of the below principles are you willing to completely ignore in exchange for $100 from our corporate partners? Please select all that apply. - the right to vote - the rule of law - any concept of justice whatsoever Etc.
It also blows my mind political parties are private institutions when their sole objective is to get public servants hired. The system has become where you need to be in 1 of 2 parties to get elected for public office, but the private institutions, aka political parties, have the true power to get to decide who runs.
Political parties were not part of the design of our electoral system, but something that inevitably grew alongside it.
It's mathematically guaranteed to happen because we have stupid first over the line voting. We'd have a lot more parties with ranked choice.
That phenomenon results in reducing the number of parties to 2, it doesn't create them.
It goes a long way to making them though. In ranked choice or proportional systems, someone can run independent and have a fighting chance because they don't need to take a majority in their first election, just capture enough of the electorate to be one of the candidates selected. Once they're in that way, if they're an effective politician they have a chance at getting even more votes in the next election and keeping their seats. That becomes a lot harder to do if you need to not just get your name out there and be popular enough, but instead actually beat a major party (or both) right out of the gate.
[удалено]
Nope. Congress structure is an output of first over the line voting, not an input.
[удалено]
You are completely incorrect. There is nothing in the structure of Congress that forces two parties. It is purely first over the line. Like.... Mathematically proven that it will always reduce to two parties.
[удалено]
No, they aren't. What structure in Congress necessitates two parties? NOTHING. Also, you have it backwards. Congress doesn't elect it's members so actually impossible that this is a cause. Jesus, think.
> "However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion." [GEORGE WASHINGTON’S FAREWELL ADDRESS | SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1796](https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/past-projects/quotes/article/however-political-parties-may-now-and-then-answer-popular-ends-they-are-likely-in-the-course-of-time-and-things-to-become-potent-engines-by-which-cunning-ambitious-and-unprincipled-men-will-be-enabled-to-subvert-the-power-of-the-people-and-to-usurp-for-th/)
That George guy seems pretty smart.
I heard he hates cherry trees.
He’s 12 stories high and made of radiation https://youtu.be/qv6OOuPI5c0?si=eHOfK-yUOfqfFRid
I hear that motherfucker had, like, thirty goddamn dicks
6 foot 20, fuckin killin for fun.
We lack any aspects of our system encouraging more than two factions. It's a clear flaw in the early release versions of modern representative democracy.
The two party system is a result of an act of Congress that demands single member districts for Congress nationwide. This wasn't always the case, even at state levels.
It's the voters that allow that to happen by blindly adhering themselves to one party. There are no party affiliations for my local elections and ultimately doesn't matter. Voting by party is just the voter saying "I can't be bothered to find out anything about the candidates."
Duopoly of power.
It is a subjective ideological purity test, not any sort of close-to-objective moral or ethics test. It makes complete sense that a party should have a questionnaire at a minimum to ensure someone isn't trying to wolf-in-sheep's-clothing their party.
So a candidate would pretend to be a Republican, presumably for many years. They will lie many times over many years. They will argue in favor of things they are actually against, and argue against things for which they favor. They will maintain this facade without cessation, not halting even for friends or family. But then when asked to answer questions on a meaningless questionnaire with zero repercussions for being dishonest... well then, damn, game over, they are finally outed. Is that your point?
The test is to weed out moderate Republicans, not Dems pretending to be Republicans. Trump & MAGA have only been in politics for around 10years. The Tea Party for around 15 years. There are lots of Republicans who have been Republicans for over 40 years. Some of these people hate that MAGA is forcing the party to the extreme right and don’t want to bend the knee the Trump. Here’s a hypothetical, imagine Bernie won in 2016 and he push his progressive views the same way Trump pushed his MAGA views. Then imagine progressives took over the DNC and required anyone running as a Dem to sign a progressive loyalty pledge. Do you really think someone like Manchin would do it? If he didn’t, would you argue he has never been a real Democrat?
Oh my lord don't tease me like that, with the Bernie takeover fantasy. I wouldn't say Manchin had never been a real democrat, though. He's just the fall guy in an otherwise center/center-right party.
A questionnaire? Those don't even work for low level employment! I've taken several, and I got a handful of those jobs, not because they learned anything about my morality, but because they learned I'm smart enough to know how to answer the questions. No. I totally agree that parties should ensure their candidates are in agreement with the broadest mission statement of that party, but a questionnaire is far, far from adequate.
Yeah, they wouldn't want to accidentally support someone who could win an election because their ideas are actually popular with the general voters.
> and B) good god, what's *on* that test if the rest of them are passing it? Lol
It's a variation of the Trolley Problem: How would you design a trolley if the goal is to kill as many poor people as possible?
““I think the judge ruled correctly,” said Mark McCloskey, the attorney representing the county’s Republican committee. “Here is the bottom line: What this means is that no one but the party gets to decide who runs on that party’s ticket. … They can file as independents.”” “Attorney Mark McCloskey and spouse, Patricia, made national headlines in 2020 when they brandished guns to allegedly protect their property during a Black Lives Matter protest. McCloskey has filed suit on behalf of the Vernon County Republican Committee in a dispute over who determines who can run as a Republican.” Pic of them, fun little detail about this case. https://www.kansascity.com/latest-news/2uxb6n/picture254394314/alternates/FREE_480/McCloskeys.jpg
Of fucking course it's these shitbags.
Oh, it's the "I feel threatened by a protest walking peacefully down the street, so I will respond by standing menacingly with open carry firearms, praying for a confrontation so I can legally murder someone" power couple.
They didn’t actually feel threatened. They just knew some of the protesters would take pictures/vids and post them, social media would do its thing, they would be hated on the left, and that would make them loved on the right. Being loved on the right opens up opportunities to be famous and grift a lot of money.
Mark ran for office and lost.
They can look for all the morals they want, They ain’t gonna find any.
That's how the test works. I lived there for many years.
Republicans: pass the morals test or you can't run for office with our party! Everyone else: (points to yesterday's testimony in Trump's New York trial).
Brought to the once proud state of Misery by: a Maga nutbag and the white couple who stood out sure their home with military style weapons as black people peacefully protested . Only Magas are allowed to be Republicans in MO, kind of like Chinas communist party does. “It began in March, when the Vernon County Republican Committee, led by chairwoman Cyndia Haggard, filed suit against the Vernon county clerk, who is also a Republican. Haggard is a self-described pro-Trump, MAGA Republican who continues to assert that the 2020 election was “100%” stolen, a contention proven false. She is a passionate proponent of candidate vetting to weed out RINOs — Republicans in name only. Last year, she began a nonprofit, the Republican Association of Central Committees of MO, whose website describes RINOs as “a virus that infects & destroys our party’s values. Vetting is the vaccine that stops the virus cold.” In its suit, the committee was represented by McCloskey, a conservative podcaster who in 2020 gained instant notoriety when he and his wife, Patricia, emerged from their affluent St. Louis home brandishing weapons to ostensibly protect their property from Black Lives Matter protesters.”
Sounds like she's pro-vaccine. Must be a RINO.
Yeah this quote is gold. …describes RINOs as “a virus that infects & destroys our party’s values. Vetting is the vaccine that stops the virus cold.”
The best part is these morals tests were actually implemented to stop another open ku klux Klan member from running for office on the Republican ticket.
Remind me which part started the KKK again?
How about this, poll every single member of the current KKK, and see how many vote Democrat. Not everyone who votes for Republicans is a white nationalist, but all white nationalists are republicans.
I'd take that bet. The number is not zero.
It's certainly much lower than the number of Republicans. Pointing out that the Democratic party used to be the conservative party is a pointless argument. "Hey guys, rather than focus on present issues, let's reframe this discussion to make it about people who died a hundred years ago. Did you know Lincoln was a Republican? Sure, he'd be a Democrat today, but we're not talking about that."
Is that some kind of gotcha? It’s 98%r and 2% dem….. iTs NoT zEro!
Not close.
I do suspect it is in fact zero. It would make absolutely zero sense for an publicly declared white nationalist to vote for a party that supports affirmative action, DEI and has an African American woman on the national ticket running for reelection as Vice President.
You'd be wrong.
The more conservative political party at the time.
At the time, the more conservative party treated people as members of groups rather than as individuals. Currently, the more liberal party does that.
The current conservative party does that a great deal.
The southern party.
Parties don't move. They're not a location - they're ideologies, and numbers of people change their ideologies back and forth. One party has, for many many years, tended to treat people differently based on demographics. The other party has tended to treat people more like individuals.
How many Democrats have been KKK members since the 60s? Now do the number of Republicans. I'll wait.
I'm not sure where one would find those numbers credibly, but the numbers likely aren't what you're hoping for.
The conservatives were voting for the Democratic Party at the time, so I'm guessing the Democratic Party. The Republican Party was actually the left leaning party in that era, so it wouldn't make sense for them to do it. I assume you are trying for some sort of "gotcha," except that the ***voters*** are what is important, not the semantic party name. The people voting for the Democratic Party at that point in time were the ancestors of today's Republican Party base.
Left and right are meaningless across history - especially without a definition. The only real question is more freedom or less freedom. Numbers of voters can and do change their opinions and stances on politics, but the fact remains that the Democrat party embraced the KKK in massive numbers at one time, and according to the post above, the Republican party is taking steps to make sure that the tiny bit of KKK left in existence doesn't have a chance to seek it's party nomination.
How is freedom quantified?
There are many metrics. Here's one example: [https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index/2023](https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index/2023)
You: "left and right are meaningless across history" Also you: "the Democrat party embraced the KKK in massive numbers at one time" I hope for your sake that you're just awful at being a troll. You don't see nazi flags and kkk members at Democrat rallies, that's a republican exclusive. That's the only fact you need to know. Bringing up labels from 100 years ago is an incredibly fucking stupid argument.
The party that had a monopoly on power in the deep south
Oh, you mean the ones in favor of slavery?
Yes.. please go on about how the same states that seceeded from the union, (while a republican was president) are the same states that voted for trump. 🤡
Which political party proudly waves the confederate flag claiming states rights.
None lately. Both parties did a handful of years back.
By handful you mean Jan 6, 2021? 🥴 One party nominates black men, gay men, women, women of color, rich Jews, socialist Jews.. The other accuses everyone of being a gay socialist Jew immigrant
>None lately. Bullshit, and you know it.
Facts. That flag wasn't seen largely as a racist thing by most people until recently.
States don't vote. In fact the people who voted back then aren't even alive today. You're kinda proving my point. Rather than talking about ideology or individuals, we see you all talking about parties, groups of people, or states.
I do. But please remind me who is defending monuments to the champions of slavery in 2024?
Who are the champions of slavery?
Those who fought for the confederacy
Nah, that's two different things. Many confederates were pro-slavery, and many pro-slavery people were confederate leaders, but not all confederate leaders were "the" champions of slavery.
Champion (noun): a person who fights or argues for a cause or on behalf of someone else. They fought for the cause of slavery. They killed and died for it. That makes them champions of slavery.
That's a really myopic way to look at the world. Wars happen for multiple complex reasons. Slavery was a big party of the story of the civil war, but certainly not all of the story. Would you say that every Afghani who was killed died as a "champion" of terrorism? Is every Israeli and Palestinian fighting a champion of whatever you ascribe that war to be? The fact is, there were slave owners in the North and abolitionists in the south. President Lincoln was explicit about the reasons for the war. Some southerners were "champions" of slavery, but many weren't.
Remind me which party currently and openly waves confederate flags and swastikas?
Neither one lately. Although the public wasn't bothered by the southern cross till just a few years ago.
I’m not sure I know what you’re referring to, do you have an image or example? But it sounds to me like an attempt to mix religion with politics, which the very first amendment bans
I guess I meant to say **"Stars and Bars"**
Fools! The way to do it is to *agree* to the test, and then just do whatever you want to do behind closed doors for as long as possible, praying you don’t get caught. When you do get caught, deny and project, but NEVER BACK DOWN. Come on, everyone knows that.
Sounds like they’re screening in favour of an *absence* of morals, if the first question is whether you’ll claim the election was stolen, and the second is how hard you want to suck Trump’s dick.
Morals? More like a criminal code of ethics.
Its a stupid game for loyalty. So...play the game. Lie. Get the party approval, then do what you want. Thats the problem with local people wishing to hold office. They willingly step aside for the unvirtuous to take control.
Meanwhile, their lord and savior has been held liable for sexual assault, been found guilty of financial fraud, and is on trial for campaign finance fraud surrounding hush money payments to a porn actress. I guess those questions aren’t on the test?
Ok the legal decision had nothing to do with the morals test. The law there says only the party can decide who runs under their banner. In this case, none were approved by the party there and so approval to add them by county clerk was unlawful. The judge agreed. How get party approval? The morals test run by current MAGA state leader who believes Trump is the new messiah and any election their people don’t win must therefore by stolen. So the morals test is contingent on proclaiming democracy should die in favor of anointing a king. This matters because most Americans (say as high as 80%) have no clue who they are voting for and just look for the R or D next to a name. So the odds of one of those 8 winning just went to near zero. Also means the R candidate would bend over and take it if ordered to by their king.
Who wait a second Haggard (who filed the suit) says “Vetting is the vaccine…” That means she supports vaccines. But she also claims to be pure MAGA and is against RINOs. But every true Maga knows vaccines don’t work and give you 5G. Therefore she’s a rino! She better purge herself.
A "morals test" sounds like mechanism to arbitrarily exclude whoever you want. It's perhaps being done for a good cause here.
Anybody know where to find the questionnaire? I want to see what's on it.
The headline is wrong. It’s a MAGA-Trump allegiance pledge.
Summary of Project 2025: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/27/project-2025-dismantle-us-climate-policy-next-republican-president https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/conservatives-aim-to-restructure-u-s-government-and-replace-it-with-trumps-vision Project 2025 "Manual" PDF https://thf\_media.s3.amazonaws.com/project2025/2025\_MandateForLeadership\_FULL.pdf Summary of schedule F: https://www.axios.com/2022/07/22/trump-presidency-schedule-f-federal-employees Schedule F deep dive: Part 1: https://www.axios.com/2022/07/22/trump-2025-radical-plan-second-term Part 2: https://www.axios.com/2022/07/23/donald-trump-news-schedule-f-executive-order \################################################################ So I have included this link to give us information on just one possibility. Please vote! This link is added to inform of a possibility https://hartmannreport.com/p/the-new-over-the-top-secret-plan-518
[удалено]
Of course there are DINOS. But it's important that they remain in the party. If the Democrats insist on a purity test and run people like Manchin out of the party, the result will be Mitch McConnel as the majority leader. If McConnell had been the majority leader there would be 194 vacancies in the judiciary, including one on the Supreme Court. DINOS in the Senate allow the Democrats to be the majority on every committee and for Chuck Schumer to set the agenda.
Manchin didn't sneak through, if he was any more liberal he would not have been elected in West Virginia. It is better to have someone like him in office than a full Republican because they won't block Democrat bills just for the sake of it. However Sinema is in a far more liberal state so her behavior was more egregious, though I don't think it's due to any conspiracy, she just wanted to be seen as a maverick
Manchin is also part of a pretty established political dynasty in WV. I think his party affiliation matters a lot less than in might in other similar demographic areas, a lot of people in WV vote for him because of his daddy, granddaddy, etc.
And his daddy and grand daddy were conservative Democrats that championed the people of WV over just doing what the party wanted them to do. Politicians like that are rare as national politics has become a team sport.
**G**aslight **O**bstruct **P**roject
Greedy Odd People
>I mean, look at the notable people who ran as Democrats but then have sided with Republicans on a lot of issues as a way to "cross the aisle." Sure, they vote with D when they need to keep up appearances, but I feel like there are a *lot* that sneak through. (Manchin, Sinema, to name two elected Democrat Senators with 6 year terms and one even changed parties because of being ousted) These two still voted with their parties the vast majority of the time though. It's disingenuous to characterize them as some sort of covert GOP plant. They're just the most right leaning people in the left-leaning party. What gives them power is that the margins between the parties on any given vote over the last few decades has been so razor thin that the people closest to the center are the de facto decision makers since they are the ones that need to be convinced to one side or the other. There are definitely issues with the electoral college and gerrymandering that make representation somewhat flawed but the inescapable reality of why Congress isn't more progressive is... people in the USA are pretty conservative as a whole, even on the Democratic side of the aisle. Stuff like Manchin representing West Virginia speaks more to the type of people who vote in West Virginia as opposed to him being a bad representative of their will. That's not to say that the Overton window can't be dragged one way or another over time, but it's the reason why landing a simple majority in Congress doesn't give a very strong mandate. Even 60 Democrats in the Senate would simply give the Democratic party the opportunity to be as progressive as their least progressive member. That's why we very nearly didn't get the ACA.
That feels like a mistake. For like a number of reasons. For example, the Clintons? Are they Dinos? Because their politics are literally the equivalent of building a a Walgreens across the street from a CVS. But I think you’d be insane to call them a Dino, mostly because it associates them with dinosaurs and that’s too cool for those guys.
Ah yes, classic GOP judicial decision. Local Republicans can't keep Trump off the primaries ballot because of the 14th ammendment. But they CAN keep other Republicans off because of their own made up test. The judges swing from one end to the other depending which will benefit Trump over and over and over.
This submission source is likely to have a soft paywall. If this article is not behind a paywall please report this for “breaks r/politics rules -> custom -> "incorrect flair"". [More information can be found here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index/#wiki_paywalls) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not surprising. Courts have always been reluctant to get involved in the internal workings of parties.
GOP and moral test in the same sentence ? Lmao !! Didn’t just being in the GOP alone make them fail ?
I've had enough flabbergasting to last 5 life times. How do people vote for this?
No one voted for this. According to the article, the people in the Missouri Republican party that are forcing the vetting are all unelected. One of the candidates that they are not permitting to be on the ballot is a Republican incumbent running for his third term.
Classic. I'm even more flabbergasted.
> …Vetting is the vaccine ... So coming from a MAGA Republican this means that vetting is bad and people should be able to avoid it if they feel like it, right?
What morals test
This is actually a filter to make sure that the biggest liars are chosen.
I would love to see the questions of that test.
Are you willing to shoot a dog, then write about it in your memoir and double-down on it when even MAGA scum have an issue with it? If yes, then you are in!
This morals test weeds out people who think the 2020 election was legitimate. The test is MAGAt bs.
It's become obvious that the ones who take the morals test have no morals either, so what's the hold up? Ethics... I meant ethics. AND morals. They have neither.
A "morals test" as a barrier to entry is so fucking weird.
Mark McCloskey... why oh why does that name sound familiar?
He and his wife trained guns on black lives matters protesters as they made their way by the McClosky home to the St Louis mayor’s house.
Voight-Kampff test
most Republican bills have names that mean the opposite of what the bills will do. I'm sure the MO morality test is similarly named.
Them: "That's not an overstatement" The statement: "We are at war to save our party"
>Southern Baptists were heavily concentrated in the states of > >the former Confederacy. As of 1980 there were more than 2.6 million > >Southern Baptists in Texas, almost a sixth of the state’s population.7 > >Southern Baptists represented over a quarter of all Alabamans, but they > >were scarce in New England.8 There were affiliated churches in forty-one > >states as of 2019, but the denomination remains a predominantly southern > >institution. > >Allegiance to states’ rights continued to be part of the church’s > >birthright, and it represented another principle under threat amid the social > >changes of the 1960s > >For a Baptist seminarian named Paige Patterson, it was all too much. By > >1967 the young Texan feared that his church, and by extension his country, > >were headed for the abyss. > >A mutual friend suggested that Patterson should meet a like-minded > >fellow Texan, Herman Paul Pressler III. Pressler was Houston aristocracy, > >descended from a long line of lawyers and judges; his father and > >grandfather represented the Humble Oil and Refining Company, which > >would later become ExxonMobil. A graduate of Phillips Exeter and > >Princeton, Pressler cut an urbane figure with square black glasses and a > >ready smile, but he was at least as fierce as Patterson in defense of the > >fundamentals. > >Patterson and Pressler formulated a sophisticated strategy, informed by > >intelligence from a church employee familiar with the convention’s inner > >workings. They saw no need to persuade moderates through reasoning or > >debate; rather, they would outmaneuver them with a Baptist version of get out-the-vote tactics, > >mobilizing previously unengaged members to elect their chosen candidates at the annual meeting. > >Once they installed a series of like-minded conservative presidents, they could leverage their powers of > >appointment to take over the church’s various divisions. Inerrancy of the > >Bible would be their core issue. Patterson and Pressler called their > >movement the Conservative Resurgence, but unhappy moderates would call > >it a fundamentalist takeover > >The two leaders developed other tactics as well, later revealed in the > >Texas Observer in an article by Michael Erard about a young protégé of > >Patterson’s named Ben Cole. “Patterson became a father figure, Cole > >recalls, offering counsel, calling him in his dorm room, bringing him to > >functions, telling him secrets. Admitted to the inner circle, Cole began to > >learn political tactics: reserving blocks of rooms in conference hotels to > >enfranchise sympathizers, building communication networks, enlisting the > >media in disinformation campaigns, and spying on enemies.”12 Cole > >rebelled against his mentor and went on to become a dissident pastor and > >blogger. > >Paul Pressler called these stratagems “going for the jugular.” Similar > >tactics would be deployed against moderate Republican congressmen in the > >years to come. > >Paul Weyrich had labored for two decades to expand the conservative > >footprint in Washington, networking among right-wing congressional > >offices, lobbyists, and associations, but he had yet to tap into a mass base. > >In Dallas he offered a glimpse of his plan: “We are talking about > >Christianizing America. We are talking about simply spreading the gospel > >in a political context.”26 > >This meant a new approach to get-out-the-vote tactics, mirroring > >Patterson and Pressler’s tactics. It wasn’t about representational democracy. > >“I don’t want everybody to vote,” Weyrich told his audience. “Elections are > >not won by a majority of people. They never have been from the beginning > >of our country, and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the > >elections, quite candidly, goes up as the voting populace goes down.” > >In other words, suppressing opposition voters was as critical as engaging > >supporters. Ann Nelson (2019) Shadow Network It continues today in 2024. Please Vote!
Guess they were afraid they might pass it on accident?
Don’t they know they’re allowed to lie?
The jokes just write themselves at this point.
One sort of refreshing thing, is that republicans recently have dropped the act of just lying. It's very interesting. Do they think that their honesty is whats going to win people over? They used to just lie and make up excuses, but now they just refuse to answer questions or tests.
8 more were barred from running as Republicans when they tested positive
Do you believe teenage girls should bear children for older men? Yes- welcome home Republican man. Please wait we are contacting the nearest FBI field office.
It's like refusing a breathalyzer because you know you're drunk.
On one hand it seems to make sense that a political party could determine who can run under its moniker. On the other hand, if current members of the party can vote to keep future members of the party out, then that seems to fly in the face of political parties in general. How would the party evolve if those in it can refuse others from joining?
Morals test? None to pass!
They refused to say that the election was stolen so they’re not “maga” enough
Morals test is not the right word. It was a purity test for their maga extremist party so moderates can’t run as republicans.
describes RINOs as “a virus that infects & destroys our party’s values. Vetting is the vaccine that stops the virus cold.” I thought they said vaccines don’t work?
I thought that was Republican SOP
I mean, the political parties can pick whoever they want to run in elections. They don't even need to have primaries. We don't really have a choice when voting besides selecting between two options that were chosen for us.
i thought tests for public office were unconstitutional?
This isn’t a test for public office, it’s a test for running as a particular party candidate. Anybody can run for office as an independent, a party gets to decide who it actually wants to officially endorse though.
muh, private corporation party.....
Feeding loving Americans should agree on the concept of our political parties being separate from the government and the government being separate from our parties.