The GQP opposition to the slush fund

[moniss]

has been and will be played up as the party "standing up" to things. Going into the midterms this will be played to the voters as "proof" that they are independent of Crumb the 1st. This strategy will aim heavily at discouraged GQP voters to get them to the polls and independent voters to try and convince them that there is a true "independence" in the party.

How much of this may have been the "Plan B" or secondary thinking by the political operatives in the WH/GQP? Some of this "outrage" by GQP members and others in the cabal has seemed "structured" to say the least. Crumb The 1st is not the only thing in all of this that stinks to high heaven.

I expect to see more "independent" stances touted by the GQP as they try to convince discouraged voters and independents to vote for a leopard who is supposedly changing its' spots. Any of them reelected will immediately fall back in line as they court being accepted as true MAGA faithful.

All the words of supposed "opposition" to certain things will be treated as "forgotten" just like their words of outrage over January 6th. A clear example of this is Lindsey Graham who holds the rare distinction of having a former job title of JAG official also describe him as a person.

[Betty Boom]

1. What is GQP?

I wish that people would stop using these terms that are not universally understood. I know that people think it’s cute to come up with their own little nicknames for these awful people in power, but not everybody is clued in. If you’re gonna use an acronym, the standard practice in writing is to define it the first time that you use it.

[niyad]

2. When it was first used in krasnov's first term, it referred to the gop as

the party of q-anon, if you remember that insanity. The OP did not come up with their own cute little nickname, but using something that has been around for years.

[Betty Boom]

10. I had never seen it

And I consume news on many different platforms. Again, standard practice with a non-standard non- universally recognized acronym is to define it the first time it is used.

[Skittles]

3. I'd just assume it's combining the greedy old pig party and q-anon

IOW, nutcases

[moniss]

6. The Q movement is something well known as being fundamental

with the MAGA adherents. This has gone on for several years now and the use of GQP has been in use for a very long time and over the last many years the references across the internet using GQP to indicate the intersection and identity of the GOP and the Q movement are in the millions. It is not new.

If I were to describe political parties and mention the Know Nothings or Whigs I am not going into digressions to explain their names. Usually if someone, in the course of reading anything, comes across something they don't understand or have no knowledge of the recommended practice is to "look it up" aka do your research.

My use of GQP is not a "one off" or something unique to me that I "came up with". It is not "my own" term or designation by any stretch.

[Betty Boom]

11. Non mainstream and fringe, in other words

I have never seen it, and I consume news on many different platforms. Again, standard practice with a non-standard non-universally recognized acronym is to define it the first time it is used.

And usually an author has a responsibility to write with clarity that doesn’t necessitate the reader deciphering what they’re saying by using secondary sources.

[moniss]

13. Standard practice is if you don't know something then you

use the search function. It is hardly the "first time" this marriage of Q anon and the GOP has been done. It is not believable that have never come across Q anon and the crazies within it. GQP, as others have pointed out to you, is hardly unknown or obscure. As far as what you think an author should do you'll just have to realize that the world isn't going to do everything you want.

If I were to make alphabet mash of something and it was unique and was not widely used for the last several years I would explain what it was. Since that's not the case here it is not my responsibility to catch you up on things. The search engines can easily give you plenty of info about Q anon and the GQP reference. Typing in 3 letters and clicking the magnifying glass or hitting enter in a search box is not really a burden.

I do hours and hours of reading and entering terms into search so that I can get more references. I know others here do as well and I read their excellent posts and it spurs me to dig deeper and learn even more. There is nothing wrong here with what was written.

[Betty Boom]

14. The Existence of Google Is Not a Substitute for Clear Writing

The issue isn’t whether I know how to use a search engine. The issue is whether a writer is communicating effectively with their audience.

Good writers don’t force readers to stop and decode insider jargon every few paragraphs. If your goal is communication rather than signaling membership in a particular group, you define uncommon terms when you first use them.

The existence of Google does not absolve writers of the responsibility to write clearly. By that logic, no author would ever need to explain anything because readers could simply look it up themselves.

What’s interesting is that you seem genuinely unaware that “GQP” is not a mainstream term. The fact that it feels self-evident to you actually illustrates the problem. When people spend enough time in an insular community, they begin to mistake that community’s vocabulary for universally understood language.

And saying that two other people agreed with you isn’t evidence that you’re right. It’s just an appeal to popularity. Arguments stand or fall on their merits, not on how many people in the room happen to share the same assumption.

Effective writing reduces the reader’s workload. It doesn’t assign homework.

[moniss]

15. Good readers don't

harangue authors over the reader not being up to speed with common usage or feeling common usage needs to be spelled out for them rather than the reader taking responsibility for their own lack of knowledge of commonly used terms. The fact that you keep arguing the idea that usage of GQP or Q anon as a subject are somehow obscure shows that you clearly have still not done any research.

Since you appear unable or unwilling to do basic research on the subject here are some quick references obtained in less than one minute:

From search referencing britannica.com

"QAnon has been referenced extensively on social media platforms. From October 2017 to June 2020, over 69 million tweets, 487,000 Facebook posts, and 281,000 Instagram posts mentioned QAnon-related phrases or hashtags. This indicates a significant presence and engagement with the conspiracy theory across various online platforms."

A little more of the history at this link:

https://medium.com/insider/the-history-of-qanon-b73d644cfbac

Even more discussion about GQP and it having prominence in political discussion about the GOP and their embrace of Q anon:

https://scout.yahoo.com/chat/019e9193-6113-72d7-88a0-a7afc739f50e-a?fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Aw%2Cm%3AgenAiSum%2Cpos%3A1

Since you find my writing so burdensome to read I suggest you don't bother.

[Betty Boom]

16. The question was about GQP, not QAnon

What’s striking is that you still haven’t addressed the actual argument.

My original comment was a simple request that you define “GQP.” I wasn’t asking what QAnon is. I already know what QAnon is. I wasn’t arguing that QAnon is obscure, nonexistent, or difficult to research.

Yet your response consists largely of proving that QAnon has a large online presence, which is a point I never disputed.

The question was whether “GQP” is a term that a writer can reasonably assume all readers will understand without definition. Those are entirely different issues.

The existence of search results does not transform community-specific jargon into mainstream language. If it did, every specialized term on the internet would qualify as common usage.

More importantly, a reader asking for clarification is not “haranguing” an author. It’s participating in a discussion. I asked a question about a writing choice. You responded by questioning the reader rather than defending the choice itself.

And that’s perhaps the most telling part of this exchange. What began as a discussion about audience awareness and clear writing ended with personal defensiveness and an invitation not to read your work.

If a writer’s response to a reader asking for clarification is “don’t read me,” that seems less like a defense of the writing and more like an admission that the discussion has moved from the merits of the argument to irritation that the question was asked at all.

In any event, I think we’ve probably reached the end of the conversation. I remained focused on the writing. You seem more interested in criticizing the reader.

[70sEraVet]

4. I still like 'RepubliKKKans'.

The visual of it is effective.

[liberalgunwilltravel]

5. This nothing but bait and switch

As soon as the reconciliation bill is passed, Trump and Blanche will continue to move forward with the slush fund. There is no reason to believe anything that comes out of this White House. And let’s not forget that the deal on the audit is still in place. And that is just as much a theft of taxpayer dollars as the slush fund. Democrats need to hammer that point home.

[underpants]

7. Agreed. This blew up in his face so badly it wasn't hard to " make a stand"

It stinks to high heaven.

[mopinko]

8. common 'election eve' tactic.

let ppl in tight races object to/vote against something unpopular.

[Happy Hoosier]

9. They really are just trying from rein Trump in just enough...

... that the rubes don't finally understand what the game is. They want the grift to go on...

[Boo1]

12. Don't buy it

There's not threading the needle.

People who don't like Trump aren't going to vote to Republicans regardless of if they can point to some obscure thing that didn't end up happening and people who do like him aren't going to vote for congressmen who stand up to him a little.