The answer I give to the question in the title of this blog post is that "I do not know." The Republican Party is like the Titanic ship headed off into the abyss with no captain at the wheel. No firm command. This is why the Trump administration failed miserably too.
In the video by MSNBC, Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough talks with a former Senate colleague about the direction of the Republican Party. From where it has been when the two of them were in the office until now:
The Republican Party has shifted from a party of something to a chaotic and aimless party that is supporting former President Donald Trump. Why? I have no idea. And for those reading who think 'he supports the average person' - please - spare me the bullshit. That former President led the nation into chaos from a trade agreement perspective (for one) to complete chaos on January 6th -- in an attempt to overturn the nation's election process. Why would anyone support this clown?
And the main theme of the Republican Party is that the Democrats are crazy. Really? Wow.
In the video below by MSNBC, David French is interviewed about an article in The Atlantic discussing the right-wing pushing people to fear the left-leaning view:
To the point of absurdity...The right-wing has lost its potential by pushing conspiracy theories.
Idaho has taken the change in ruling on abortions by the Supreme Court and ran with it by legislating the practice altogether illegal. If a doctor performs an abortion, he/she could end up in jail with a fine. Additionally, if the abortion is medically necessary, the doctor could still end up in jail with a fine. The burden of innocence lies with the doctor during a trial. What a crazy law!
There are times when abortion is necessary. Additionally, these times may conflict with the public perception of those times. That is up to the doctors to decide -- case by case. Not the court or state legalisation.
Let's perform a thought experiment. Say that you are a member of Congress. A terrorist attack occurs that warrants sending U.S. Military troops to battle for retribution. After the conflict has been resolved and retribution has been served, troops come home. Years later, Americans learn that the military disposes of its garbage on remote military bases by burning the material. Burn pits. Giant pits are full of trash and are burned to produce a myriad of toxic by-products. U.S. troops nearby watching are exposed to toxic gases through inhalation.
That is the setup of the thought experiment.
Now, in Congress, a bill shows up asking for funding to give medical care for those who served on the bases that were directly exposed to toxic gases.
How would you vote? For the bill? Or against the bill?
Remember that an earlier vote by yourself sent those military troops into a hazardous environment?
The answer seems easy to me -- support the bill. But I am not in Congress.
Wow! The obstacle toward passing legislation to give veterans of burn pits surrounds the statement in the bill: Note - paraphrased.
Coverage extends to doctors in rural areas to serve veterans who do not live near major metropolitan areas with sizeable medical infrastructure.
What?
Republicans are running with this addition claiming that the extension to rural areas will drive up the costs of medical care to the point of being 'out of control.'
Which is bull crap. Pay for healthcare for those who Congress chose to send into the line of fire - dangerous conditions - i.e., burn pits. The time has come to give care to those who serve the Country.
