The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: Maj. Bill Martin on January 03, 2023, 04:35:12 pm
-
Kevin McCarthy’s fate on the line, House conservatives warn speaker’s election could take days
"Rep. Scott Perry, a conservative Republican from Pennsylvania, outlined the demands Mr. McCarthy has so far rejected, including commitments to consider term limits for members of Congress, a balanced budget measure and legislation to replace income taxes with a national sales tax.
“Kevin McCarthy had an opportunity to be speaker of the House,” Rep. Mr. Perry said Tuesday. “He rejected it.”"
Okay, I'm not sure I've ever heard of Scott Perry before this, but now I know I absolutely despise him because performative crap isn't a valid reason to have chaos over the speakership.
The Supreme Court already has held that the Constitutional requirements to hold office are the only ones that can be imposed by states (U.S. v. Thorton), and that reasoning is just as applicable to Congress setting limits that go beyond the Constitution. So voting on term limits is pointless. There also is absolutely zero chance that you'd get Constitutional Amendments -- because that's what it would take -- on a balanced budget or national sales tax through the Senate, much less through 38 states. So those other two demands are purely performative as well.
This isn't about actually changing anything. It's basically just conservative virtue signaling, and Perry and his ilk know it. They're just pandering to their base because they lack the courage to say "Sorry guys, I agree with you on these issues but they can't go anywhere and here is why" I can't stand that kind of condescending crap regardless of whether it comes from the left or right.
-
This isn't about actually changing anything. It's basically just conservative virtue signaling, and Perry and his ilk know it. They're just pandering to their base because they lack the courage to say "Sorry guys, I agree with you on these issues but they can't go anywhere and here is why" I can't stand that kind of condescending crap regardless of whether it comes from the left or right.
Riiiight. No hills to die on. Goes along gets along... That's how you fight. *****rollingeyes*****
-
Riiiight. No hills to die on. Goes along gets along... That's how you fight. *****rollingeyes*****
Why not actually address the points I made? Start with the first one: What is the point of sabotaging the Speaker elections over term limits when the Supreme Court already has held that they are unconstitutional??
Here's an idea -- why not have some demands that don't require Amendments to the Constitution that have absolutely zero chance of happening?? Cripe, conservatives complain that they elect people who just talk but don't actually accomplish anything, but now you're endorsing the exact same thing -- stupid votes that you know long before you start will accomplish absolutely nothing.
-
Why not actually address the points I made? Start with the first one: What is the point of sabotaging the Speaker elections over term limits when the Supreme Court already has held that they are unconstitutional??
The way a philosophy is fleshed out has bumps along the way. I care more that they are carving something out to stand upon. Something real. Lines drawn in the sand.
That's a start. And by the way, I am not for term limits, and I am on record here saying as much.
But it does my heart good to hear 'balanced budgets' and 'flat tax' echoed through the halls of the powerful. That they have no chance in hell is precisely because they are not shouted out as a clarion call. I will stand fast with these guys.
-
Here's an idea -- why not have some demands that don't require Amendments to the Constitution that have absolutely zero chance of happening?? Cripe, conservatives complain that they elect people who just talk but don't actually accomplish anything, but now you're endorsing the exact same thing -- stupid votes that you know long before you start will accomplish absolutely nothing.
Incorrect. The status quo accomplishes nothing. Something other than the status quo is necessary. That requires philosophical change - or in this case, change-back.
A congress willing to battle for fiscal sanity - Albeit through things not yet achievable - is exactly the medicine we need. The battle toward seemingly impossible goals will swing the fight in that direction. They may never get to balanced budgets and a flat tax, but who knows how far they will get fighting in that direction?
Or is it better to ease along to fiscal destruction as is the current status quo?
-
Incorrect. The status quo accomplishes nothing. Something other than the status quo is necessary. That requires philosophical change - or in this case, change-back.
A congress willing to battle for fiscal sanity - Albeit through things not yet achievable - is exactly the medicine we need. The battle toward seemingly impossible goals will swing the fight in that direction. They may never get to balanced budgets and a flat tax, but who knows how far they will get fighting in that direction?
Or is it better to ease along to fiscal destruction as is the current status quo?
You didn't answer the question again. What good does it do to ask for a term limits bill when the Supreme Court already has held that they are unconstitutional? ETA: Okay, I see that you don't support them, which is fine. But this moron Perry does, which was the point of my initial post. Either 1) he doesn't know they are unconstitutional, in which case he's an idiot who has no business in Congress, or 2) He knows they're unconstitutional, but doesn't think you know that so he can earn political brownie points by promoting a meaningless piece of legislations. It's pandering because he assumed you/we are stupid. It's either 1) or 2), so as I said, I despise him.
Answer that question, and then I'll address your point about fiscal destruction, because there actually is a way to do that without requiring the passage of a Constitutional Amendment that will never, ever pass.
-
The way a philosophy is fleshed out has bumps along the way. I care more that they are carving something out to stand upon. Something real. Lines drawn in the sand.
Yes. Throw 'em in the mosh pit and let 'em scrum, see if they can gather the stones to come together and lead out with something substantial.
Tired of empty suit, easy peazy, business as usual.
-
The way a philosophy is fleshed out has bumps along the way. I care more that they are carving something out to stand upon. Something real. Lines drawn in the sand.
But it's not real. That's my point. Passing a bill that you know, with 100% certainty, won't go anywhere doesn't accomplish anything real. It's pointless political symbolism whose line is drawn in invisible ink.
But it does my heart good to hear 'balanced budgets' and 'flat tax' echoed through the halls of the powerful. That they have no chance in hell is precisely because they are not shouted out as a clarion call. I will stand fast with these guys.
Flat tax was not one of those three demands. If it were, I'd have a different reaction because that would not require a Constitutional Amendment. What they demanded was an end to the income tax and replacing it with a national sales tax, and that would require a Constitutional Amendment. Which is why it is an idiotic, performative proposal.
-
Yes. Throw 'em in the mosh pit and let 'em scrum, see if they can gather the stones to come together and lead out with something substantial.
Tired of empty suit, easy peazy, business as usual.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I could care less about their "intentions" if they don't actually accomplish anything. These guys are legislators, which means their job is to write laws that actually work. So how about if we up our expectations a bit, and ask them to come up with some more creative ideas of accomplishing the same goals that actually have a chance??
-
Flat tax was not one of those three demands. If it were, I'd have a different reaction because that would not require a Constitutional Amendment. What they demanded was an end to the income tax and replacing it with a national sales tax, and that would require a Constitutional Amendment. Which is why it is an idiotic, performative proposal.
Sorry @Maj. Bill Martin but you are just flat out wrong on this point. Abolishing the income tax and replacing it with a National Retail Sales Tax would not require a constitutional amendment as nowhere does the constitution require an income tax.
-
You didn't answer the question again. What good does it do to ask for a term limits bill when the Supreme Court already has held that they are unconstitutional?
I already did - here it is again: I don't care. That they are willing to fight for something (anything) is healthy. Where the fight goes is in the fighting - these points turn the battle toward the right. It will not produce term limits - but it may well awaken other means to end long terms - Like a return to enforcement. Most of the evil-doers have done plenty to get them kicked out for cause. Let the games begin.
Answer that question, and then I'll address your point about fiscal destruction, because there actually is a way to do that without requiring the passage of a Constitutional Amendment that will never, ever pass.
There are always ways and ways. These are lawyers. It's what they do. happy77
-
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I could care less about their "intentions" if they don't actually accomplish anything. These guys are legislators, which means their job is to write laws that actually work. So how about if we up our expectations a bit, and ask them to come up with some more creative ideas of accomplishing the same goals that actually have a chance??
They can get no legislation passed. What they can do is start off with a rules package that will stop the abuses of the previous House, and be very aggressive in investigations in exposing all the Rats malfeasance.
That is going to take leadership in and of itself, and I don't see that happening with McCarthy.
-
Yes. Throw 'em in the mosh pit and let 'em scrum, see if they can gather the stones to come together and lead out with something substantial.
Tired of empty suit, easy peazy, business as usual.
BRAVO! That's the ticket!
-
But it's not real. That's my point. Passing a bill that you know, with 100% certainty, won't go anywhere doesn't accomplish anything real. It's pointless political symbolism whose line is drawn in invisible ink.
Oh but it is real! I don't expect they'll get to that bill - It will be found to be unconstitutional as you predict, and that probably in committee. But it leaves room for 'what can we do instead?' And that is a question that has not been on the table for a decade or two.
Flat tax was not one of those three demands. If it were, I'd have a different reaction because that would not require a Constitutional Amendment. What they demanded was an end to the income tax and replacing it with a national sales tax, and that would require a Constitutional Amendment. Which is why it is an idiotic, performative proposal.
The 'national sales tax' instead of income tax IS flat tax. And I do not believe it would require an amendment. However, that is not the point - As I said before, that they will stand upon something - ANYTHING - is music to my ears.
-
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I could care less about their "intentions" if they don't actually accomplish anything. These guys are legislators, which means their job is to write laws that actually work. So how about if we up our expectations a bit, and ask them to come up with some more creative ideas of accomplishing the same goals that actually have a chance??
How they will accomplish nothing is by going along with the moderate wing in power - and the proof of that is on the record.
-
It is much easier to prove taxes paid on income than on taxes paid on goods. I don't want some reve-noo-er spying on my property demanding proof of taxes paid for the shingles on my new roof. The IRS is bad enough. The BATF-and-everything-else-sold-under-the-son will be far worse. Now when I buy a yard sale item advertised on a neighborhood app, I will now have to pay taxes under threat of jail time.
-
Ryan Nobles
@ryanobles
11m
I asked Rep. Mike Rogers if he threatened that members who voted against McCarthy would he tossed off committees.
“I didn’t threaten them, I promised them and that’s a difference.”
This is what happens when the opposition jumps to the microphones without a plan ---- they end up further behind.
The negotiations should have stayed as private as possible within the Caucus. Here's a strategy that may have worked --- if the goal was truly to secure a strong conservative voice and not to strut and humiliate.
I would have worked for the these changes in exchange for a McCarthy Speakership and a united front:
- The ability to remove the Speaker
- Guaranteed number of conservatives on each committee
- Guaranteed number of conservative seats at the agenda setting table
-. Rules changes for guaranteed time to review and debate proposed legislation
-. A conservative liaison with the Senate
-
It is much easier to prove taxes paid on income than on taxes paid on goods. I don't want some reve-noo-er spying on my property demanding proof of taxes paid for the shingles on my new roof. The IRS is bad enough. The BATF-and-everything-else-sold-under-the-son will be far worse. Now when I buy a yard sale item advertised on a neighborhood app, I will now have to pay taxes under threat of jail time.
Does anything like that occur in the 45 states that have sales taxes @Hoodat? What makes you think it would at the national level?
-
It is much easier to prove taxes paid on income than on taxes paid on goods. I don't want some reve-noo-er spying on my property demanding proof of taxes paid for the shingles on my new roof. The IRS is bad enough. The BATF-and-everything-else-sold-under-the-son will be far worse. Now when I buy a yard sale item advertised on a neighborhood app, I will now have to pay taxes under threat of jail time.
They will no longer have the right. It is a RETAIL tax, which is not anything to do with garage sales. They'd no longer have the ability or need to invade your privacy, because what you do with your money is no longer auditable. They can only take their pound of flesh from the cash register.
And more importantly, it ties their income through taxation to the economy. They make more money when the economy is rockin' - bare on it's face - wherein right now, they largely (think) their money is unaffected by economy.
-
This is what happens when the opposition jumps to the microphones without a plan ---- they end up further behind.
And this is what happens with your method:
(https://imgs.search.brave.com/flMpZehRAlHJDb4BOOY7U0q0BufjRsL0NFHcyqGEVw8/rs:fit:1024:1200:1/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly9jZG4u/YnJpdGFubmljYS5j/b20vMzQvMTMzOTM0/LTA1MC1CNEIzMjlB/Mi9Kb2huLUEtQm9l/aG5lci5qcGc) (https://imgs.search.brave.com/orUBNroVoMlQPYkPiTeA-AQPHtLz5kR0bvCKt0Qk9jM/rs:fit:264:225:1/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly90c2Uz/Lm1tLmJpbmcubmV0/L3RoP2lkPU9JUC5h/Slc0cUhHa2VMNWdr/SUk0U3pYckRBSGFO/VCZwaWQ9QXBp) (https://imgs.search.brave.com/IAhF_vPF1LD5eulWcDxyUe94UiNAtoBUsj2_3kB6BvA/rs:fit:1200:1200:1/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly9jZG4u/YnJpdGFubmljYS5j/b20vNTUvMTMwOTU1/LTA1MC1DQkRDQkRB/Ni9NaXRjaC1NY0Nv/bm5lbGwtMjAwOS5q/cGc)
-
They will no longer have the right. It is a RETAIL tax, which is not anything to do with garage sales. They'd no longer have the ability or need to invade your privacy, because what you do with your money is no longer auditable. They can only take their pound of flesh from the cash register.
And more importantly, it ties their income through taxation to the economy. They make more money when the economy is rockin' - bare on it's face - wherein right now, they largely (think) their money is unaffected by economy.
:yowsa: Exactly right! Along with the forth and fifth amendments being restored along with the ability to start or expand a business without having to spend even one second considering tax implications.
-
They will no longer have the right. It is a RETAIL tax, which is not anything to do with garage sales. They'd no longer have the ability or need to invade your privacy, because what you do with your money is no longer auditable. They can only take their pound of flesh from the cash register.
And more importantly, it ties their income through taxation to the economy. They make more money when the economy is rockin' - bare on it's face - wherein right now, they largely (think) their money is unaffected by economy.
I could possibly get on board with that. But I vehemently disagree with @Bigun on one point. This would absolutely positively require a Constitutional Amendment. Not an amendment to allow the new tax, but an amendment to permanently block the old one. There is no way in hell I am signing on to a national sales tax while our government still has the authority to tax our incomes.
And then there will be the creation of a new cottage industry for the super-wealthy that will specialize in the avoidance of hefty sales tax bills. Yacht purchases and registrations will no longer occur in the US. The same for private planes, etc. Gulf Stream will have to move offshore in order to remain in business.
-
I could possibly get on board with that. But I vehemently disagree with @Bigun on one point. This would absolutely positively require a Constitutional Amendment. Not an amendment to allow the new tax, but an amendment to permanently block the old one. There is no way in hell I am signing on to a national sales tax while our government still has the authority to tax our incomes.
And then there will be the creation of a new cottage industry for the super-wealthy that will specialize in the avoidance of hefty sales tax bills. Yacht purchases and registrations will no longer occur in the US. The same for private planes, etc. Gulf Stream will have to move offshore in order to remain in business.
If you had ever taken the time to actually read the proposed legislation (HR25 in the last congress) you would know that is directly addressed in the legislation @Hoodat Every bit of it.
-
Does anything like that occur in the 45 states that have sales taxes @Hoodat? What makes you think it would at the national level?
The stakes are much much lower for those 45 states. And it is State agents policing those things, not Federal agents. We will end up with more tax agents than we have now. Every current IRS agent will find a new job at BATF. And that still won't be enough.
-
:yowsa: Exactly right! Along with the forth and fifth amendments being restored along with the ability to start or expand a business without having to spend even one second considering tax implications.
:beer: happy77
That's right. I have always been a flat tax fan - Hands down! The only reservation I would have is in taxing groceries and medical/medicines... and maybe housing. Retail goods, no problem. But the ability to live... Taxing that is a bother. I know that sounds more like a luxury tax, but that is not what I mean to do... :shrug:
-
If you had ever taken the time to actually read the proposed legislation (HR25 in the last congress) you would know that is directly addressed in the legislation @Hoodat
OK, so help me understand. Bill Gates buys a new yacht - not from a US yacht maker, but from one in Italy. And he registers the yacht in the Bahamas, or Isle of Man, or some place like that. Let's say he forks over around $400 million for it, and then pays $1 million per year to keep it staffed. How does the US government get its money?
-
There is no way in hell I am signing on to a national sales tax while our government still has the authority to tax our incomes.
That's right - That's a sticky bit. Even if it starts out right, the thought that they could add income tax back in later is an uncomfortable reality.
And then there will be the creation of a new cottage industry for the super-wealthy that will specialize in the avoidance of hefty sales tax bills. Yacht purchases and registrations will no longer occur in the US. The same for private planes, etc. Gulf Stream will have to move offshore in order to remain in business.
I don't know that's true. The wealthy will no longer be being taxed otherwise, so I don't know how that will shake out... Schedule C would be another concern... a worthy point.
-
:beer: happy77
That's right. I have always been a flat tax fan - Hands down! The only reservation I would have is in taxing groceries and medical/medicines... and maybe housing. Retail goods, no problem. But the ability to live... Taxing that is a bother. I know that sounds more like a luxury tax, but that is not what I mean to do... :shrug:
I still prefer a flat tax on income. If it is good enough for G-d, it's good enough for me.
-
The stakes are much much lower for those 45 states. And it is State agents policing those things, not Federal agents. We will end up with more tax agents than we have now. Every current IRS agent will find a new job at BATF. And that still won't be enough.
There would be no federal agents policing the federal sales tax I'm in favor of either @Hoodat Read the bill!
-
I still prefer a flat tax on income. If it is good enough for G-d, it's good enough for me.
When you can provide me with a definitive, immutable, not subject to change at every whim of congress, definition of the word "Income" we'll talk.
-
I still prefer a flat tax on income. If it is good enough for G-d, it's good enough for me.
There is some value in that - That everybody must crack a vein personally - That responsibility is more personal... skin in the game.
But it also is secondary to the economy. Uncle gets his vig no matter how you are doing... I like the idea that uncle gets his vig from the economic market directly and only - Because that makes it in Uncle's interest to keep the economy sailing, and it would make it damn hard for them to want to over tax and slow the economy down.
The balance becomes inevitable and self-sustaining.
-
Read, watch, and learn!
https://fairtax.org/about/how-fairtax-works
-
Read, watch, and learn!
https://fairtax.org/about/how-fairtax-works
Will do. In the meantime, how does the yacht scenario fit into the picture? Or the guy smuggling Canadian whiskey into the US? Or Turkish cigarettes?
-
Will do. In the meantime, how does the yacht scenario fit into the picture? Or the guy smuggling Canadian whiskey into the US? Or Turkish cigarettes?
D00d. smugglers don't pay tax. That's all part of the cash economy. That's the point of smuggling... To avoid the tax.
-
Will do. In the meantime, how does the yacht scenario fit into the picture? Or the guy smuggling Canadian whiskey into the US? Or Turkish cigarettes?
Read the three papers at the link below.
https://fairtax.org/research-library/evasion
-
OK, reading the details. First of all, 23% is way too high. Second of all, the prebate is bullshit. We would effectively be subsidizing anyone who doesn't spend money. That is a deal-breaker for me.
With a flat income tax, a person making $10k per year is vested because that person would owe tax on that income. Under the sales tax proposal, a person spending $10k would be getting free money from the government. A great big 'hell no' to that.
-
D00d. smugglers don't pay tax. That's all part of the cash economy. That's the point of smuggling... To avoid the tax.
The guy down on the corner selling drugs to your kids doesn't go find an IRS agent at the end of the year either! But he does eat, drive fancy cars, wear spiffy duds...
-
The guy down on the corner selling drugs to your kids doesn't go find an IRS agent at the end of the year either! But he does eat, drive fancy cars, wear spiffy duds...
That's right.
-
OK, reading the details. First of all, 23% is way too high. Second of all, the prebate is bullshit. We would effectively be subsidizing anyone who doesn't spend money. That is a deal-breaker for me.
With a flat income tax, a person making $10k per year is vested because that person would owe tax on that income. Under the sales tax proposal, a person spending $10k would be getting free money from the government. A great big 'hell no' to that.
Many papers available on the subject. I'm not going to reproduce them here.
https://fairtax.org/research-library/taxes-and-tax-reform
-
K Street in Washington is filled with people who spend all of their time working to "refine" the definition of "INCOME"!
-
Read the three papers at the link below.
https://fairtax.org/research-library/evasion
Looking through the first one. It repeats the claim that tax evasion will be lower, but it does nothing to explain how.
The gist of it is that a national sales tax will have ZERO effect on a yacht bought in Italy and registered in the Bahamas. Meanwhile, a crew with a $1 million income would no longer be subject to income taxes for their labor.
As for the Canadian lumber smuggler, the only way you are going to catch him is by using BATF agents that will follow him in each State he visits. No different from DEA agents tracking drug smugglers in every US State.
This is not the panacea that this site makes it out to be. And 23% is way too high, considering that with the new subsidies, you still won't collect more than 19% of GDP. I prefer a 17% flat income tax, and then force government to live within that. No more free tax credit handouts from the IRS.
-
The guy down on the corner selling drugs to your kids doesn't go find an IRS agent at the end of the year either! But he does eat, drive fancy cars, wear spiffy duds...
The income used to purchase those drugs has already been taxed.
-
OK, reading the details. First of all, 23% is way too high. Second of all, the prebate is bullshit. We would effectively be subsidizing anyone who doesn't spend money. That is a deal-breaker for me.
With a flat income tax, a person making $10k per year is vested because that person would owe tax on that income. Under the sales tax proposal, a person spending $10k would be getting free money from the government. A great big 'hell no' to that.
Any income tax is ripe for fraud and will be morphed into what it is now over time no matter how flat it starts out as.
A sales tax is the only way to limit the damage congress can do and reduce the huge burden of tax management on people and business.
-
Any income tax is ripe for fraud and will be morphed into what it is now over time no matter how flat it starts out as.
An employer has a built-in incentive for reporting income (i.e. it lowers tax liability). There is no such incentive for anyone selling goods.
A sales tax is the only way to limit the damage congress can do and reduce the huge burden of tax management on people and business.
Sure, until they begin reducing the size of the incentive carrot they use to entice sellers to do something that benefits them negatively. Or until they start increasing the subsidies paid out to "the poor". Before long, 'the poor' will be getting their subsidy checks directly deposited into their bank accounts as they pay cash for 'goods' from their local street dealers. No thanks.
-
An employer has a built-in incentive for reporting income (i.e. it lowers tax liability). There is no such incentive for anyone selling goods.
The burdens of employment and the cost of employees caused me to quit trying on a large scale and is why I went back to sole prop.
All those burdens would be removed. You might get me to hire a dozen people again.
-
Any income tax is ripe for fraud and will be morphed into what it is now over time no matter how flat it starts out as.
A sales tax is the only way to limit the damage congress can do and reduce the huge burden of tax management on people and business.
:yowsa: pointing-up
-
Maybe we should change the name of this thread to Flat Tax debate?
-
Maybe we should change the name of this thread to Flat Tax debate?
Point well taken @Polly Ticks
-
Any income tax is ripe for fraud and will be morphed into what it is now over time no matter how flat it starts out as.
A sales tax is the only way to limit the damage congress can do and reduce the huge burden of tax management on people and business.
Sales tax is equally ripe for fraud. Even a VAT, which has a lot more robustness than a retail sales tax when it comes to providing the means to catch fraud, is still subject to substantial fraud.
And sales tax audits make income tax audits look like the epitome of accuracy and correctness.
-
Maybe we should change the name of this thread to Flat Tax debate?
A correction is in order. Here goes:
Kevin McCarthy sucks!
Are we back on point now?
-
A correction is in order. Here goes:
Kevin McCarthy sucks!
Are we back on point now?
Finally we take back the House, and a handful of buffoons ruin any chance to hold the Left accountable for all of the lies,cheating and dishonest of the past two years. As importantly, the rest of the nation now sees Conservatives as incompetent morons who can't even rally behind a Speaker. The people will forgive much, but incompetence at this level is long remembered...way to go idiots, you've tarnished conservatism and damaged the only party that has a chance to hold the Dems accountable.
-
Finally we take back the House, and a handful of buffoons ruin any chance to hold the Left accountable for all of the lies,cheating and dishonest of the past two years. As importantly, the rest of the nation now sees Conservatives as incompetent morons who can't even rally behind a Speaker. The people will forgive much, but incompetence at this level is long remembered...way to go idiots, you've tarnished conservatism and damaged the only party that has a chance to hold the Dems accountable.
With McCarthy as Speaker, they will not hold the Democrats accountable. They will not rein in spending, they will not move rightward. It will simply be more of the same.
BRAVO to those few willing to try to tear the RINO hand from the throat of America.
-
Finally we take back the House, and a handful of buffoons ruin any chance to hold the Left accountable for all of the lies,cheating and dishonest of the past two years. As importantly, the rest of the nation now sees Conservatives as incompetent morons who can't even rally behind a Speaker. The people will forgive much, but incompetence at this level is long remembered...way to go idiots, you've tarnished conservatism and damaged the only party that has a chance to hold the Dems accountable.
LOL... Like all the times they did before... They give intense talk with furry actually doing nothing. Over and over. The IRS going after Obama opponents in an election and no one was fired. Now the federal agencies do whatever they like because the Republicans do nothing to stop them.
-
With McCarthy as Speaker, they will not hold the Democrats accountable. They will not rein in spending, they will not move rightward. It will simply be more of the same.
BRAVO to those few willing to try to tear the RINO hand from the throat of America.
And yet no one else has anywhere near enough support to be Speaker. McCarthy at least has the support of 203 fellow Republicans...if not him, then who should be the Speaker. Can't be Jordan, he's turned it down and is endorsing McCarthy. So how does this end, genius? Let me guess...not your problem.
-
This really is embarrassing. They should adjourn and figure things out behind closed doors instead of having this public spectacle! :pop41: *****rollingeyes*****
-
With McCarthy as Speaker, they will not hold the Democrats accountable. They will not rein in spending, they will not move rightward. It will simply be more of the same.
BRAVO to those few willing to try to tear the RINO hand from the throat of America.
Ditto. And shame on the members here for backing Democrat-lite.
-
And yet no one else has anywhere near enough support to be Speaker. McCarthy at least has the support of 203 fellow Republicans...if not him, then who should be the Speaker. Can't be Jordan, he's turned it down and is endorsing McCarthy. So how does this end, genius? Let me guess...not your problem.
Well let's see. Jordan is steadily gaining ground while McCarthy is losing ground. Maybe McCarthy is the one who should save us from this by withdrawing his name from consideration.
-
This really is embarrassing. They should adjourn and figure things out behind closed doors instead of having this public spectacle! :pop41: *****rollingeyes*****
McCarthy won't do that. He's trying to beat on the locked door like a toddler throwing a temper tantrum. He's a three time loser now and won't pass the torch to someone else.
-
And with each round he lost votes because of his egotistical stubbornness. :chairbang:
Of course CNN is having a field day!!! :smokin:
They're adjourning until noon tomorrow....
-
Kevin McCarthy’s fate on the line, House conservatives warn speaker’s election could take days
"Rep. Scott Perry, a conservative Republican from Pennsylvania, outlined the demands Mr. McCarthy has so far rejected, including commitments to consider term limits for members of Congress, a balanced budget measure and legislation to replace income taxes with a national sales tax.
“Kevin McCarthy had an opportunity to be speaker of the House,” Rep. Mr. Perry said Tuesday. “He rejected it.”"
Okay, I'm not sure I've ever heard of Scott Perry before this, but now I know I absolutely despise him because performative crap isn't a valid reason to have chaos over the speakership.
The Supreme Court already has held that the Constitutional requirements to hold office are the only ones that can be imposed by states (U.S. v. Thorton), and that reasoning is just as applicable to Congress setting limits that go beyond the Constitution. So voting on term limits is pointless. There also is absolutely zero chance that you'd get Constitutional Amendments -- because that's what it would take -- on a balanced budget or national sales tax through the Senate, much less through 38 states. So those other two demands are purely performative as well.
This isn't about actually changing anything. It's basically just conservative virtue signaling, and Perry and his ilk know it. They're just pandering to their base because they lack the courage to say "Sorry guys, I agree with you on these issues but they can't go anywhere and here is why" I can't stand that kind of condescending crap regardless of whether it comes from the left or right.
@Maj. Bill Martin
Gaetz had a presser, and simply stated that all McCarthy had to do, to get their endorsement for speaker was:
1. Agree to term limits vote on the House Floor
2. Bring up Balanced Budget provisons up from committe for review, and conferencing.
3. Bring up Border Protection Plan developed by the Texas Delegate for floor vote.
Please let me know exactly which of those 3 that you find unacceptable or unreasonable.....
Under the same condtions and terms, I wouldn't vote for this dim capitulating RINO either
-
McCarthy won't do that. He's trying to beat on the locked door like a toddler throwing a temper tantrum. He's a three time loser now and won't pass the torch to someone else.
McCarthy went scorched earth today and was quoted saying he'll press on as long as there are 4 people (inferred majority) standing with him, no matter what.
-
You didn't answer the question again. What good does it do to ask for a term limits bill when the Supreme Court already has held that they are unconstitutional?
Last I looked Congress formulates, and passes laws, even when they are of new precedence, or precedent changing. SCOTUS just interprets.
The Supreme Court once ruled slavery was not only legal, but debated its expansion. With your rationale it'd still be legal.
-
McCarthy went scorched earth today and was quoted saying he'll press on as long as there are 4 people (inferred majority) standing with him, no matter what.
It's his turn damn it.
-
K Street in Washington is filled with people who spend all of their time working to "refine" the definition of "INCOME"!
Yep, their next step is redefine capital gains as income.
Government wealth confiscation is well underway, and with our feckless GOP, I doubt they'll put up much of a fight.
-
"Kevin McCarthy’s fate on the line, House conservatives warn speaker’s election could take days..."
I'm disgusted with the "republican" party.
Let the Speaker votes go on for a couple of WEEKS, with nobody winning.
Really, folks...
Who cares any more?
The more that is done to keep Congress "incapacitated", the better off ordinary Americans are.
-
You didn't answer the question again. What good does it do to ask for a term limits bill when the Supreme Court already has held that they are unconstitutional?
The first step to implementing term limits requires a two-thirds vote of both houses. Then it goes to the States.
-
Hope Kevie has a better plan than his 1855 predecessor.....
https://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/this-day-in-politics-dec-3-1855-084492 (https://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/this-day-in-politics-dec-3-1855-084492)
2 months and 133 ballots.... :thud:
-
Ditto. And shame on the members here for backing Democrat-lite.
lol...they might question you level of "comprehension". :silly:
-
And yet no one else has anywhere near enough support to be Speaker. McCarthy at least has the support of 203 fellow Republicans...if not him, then who should be the Speaker. Can't be Jordan, he's turned it down and is endorsing McCarthy. So how does this end, genius? Let me guess...not your problem.
I doubt it would be Jordan. Though his endorsements mean nothing. He could still step up. But it won't be him. It won't be anyone from the right wing.
I thought this was a plan for concessions, but it looks now like outright rebellion. which makes me a happy camper.
Probably Scalise, with major favors owed.
-
This really is embarrassing. They should adjourn and figure things out behind closed doors instead of having this public spectacle! :pop41: *****rollingeyes*****
The public spectacle is the point. That's why they are doing it now.
-
McCarthy went scorched earth today and was quoted saying he'll press on as long as there are 4 people (inferred majority) standing with him, no matter what.
I would laugh and laugh if he got to pack up his sh*t and move out of that office he was so confident was his. :silly:
Today has been a great ride. :beer:
-
The public spectacle is the point. That's why they are doing it now.
So a spectacle that does nothing but ensure increasing Left wing power in all branches of government…for a generation…that’s the plan? A “spectacle” that sets back conservatism and ensures liberal predominance for decades. What a bunch of utter morons if that’s the goal.
I agree that all of the clowns involved in this “liberal helping fiasco” be banned from committee assignments entirely.
-
I would laugh and laugh if he got to pack up his sh*t and move out of that office he was so confident was his. :silly:
Today has been a great ride. :beer:
This is the liberals wet dream. I guess y’all can celebrate together.
-
I doubt it would be Jordan. Though his endorsements mean nothing. He could still step up. But it won't be him. It won't be anyone from the right wing.
I thought this was a plan for concessions, but it looks now like outright rebellion. which makes me a happy camper.
Probably Scalise, with major favors owed.
The speaker does not have to be a member of the house... :pondering:
-
So a spectacle that does nothing but ensure increasing Left wing power in all branches of government…for a generation…that’s the plan? A “spectacle” that sets back conservatism and ensures liberal predominance for decades. What a bunch of utter morons if that’s the goal.
I agree that all of the clowns involved in this “liberal helping fiasco” be banned from committee assignments entirely.
Well that's pretty hysterical. And I see that quite the other way around - This is probably the most conservative thing I have seen in years.
By the way, which liberals are you speaking of? The democrat ones or the Republican ones? Because less the facade of partisanship, this congress just gave the liberals everything they wished for in the next year - And these are the same people expecting to ascend to leadership.... How is that advancing conservatism?
-
This is the liberals wet dream. I guess y’all can celebrate together.
McCarthy needs to go. Not long ago, failed leadership stepped down on their own. Now it seems, they must be forced out.
If that is what's happening, then 'Oh, Happy day!'
-
The speaker does not have to be a member of the house... :pondering:
Yeah, alright... but likely will be...
-
McCarthy needs to go. Not long ago, failed leadership stepped down on their own. Now it seems, they must be forced out.
If that is what's happening, then 'Oh, Happy day!'
More than 200 House Republicans WANT him as Speaker…why should the 19 override 200+ of their peers.
You idiots are going to either put Hakeem Jeffries in the Speakership or push the moderates to align with Dems for some RINO Speaker…maybe a Liz Cheney or an Adam Kinzinger. How F’ing moronic is that?
-
More than 200 House Republicans WANT him as Speaker…why should the 19 override 200+ of their peers.
Because that's how voting works. Don't blame me if he can't get the votes. :shrug:
(I say LMAO) :laugh:
You idiots are going to either put Hakeem Jeffries in the Speakership or push the moderates to align with Dems for some RINO Speaker…maybe a Liz Cheney or an Adam Kinzinger. How F’ing moronic is that?
That's the status quo right now. And that's a good reason to get in the way.
Bear in mind, a few concessions would have made all the difference. McCarthy waived off the conservatives and gave them nothing. Like you, he expected them to kiss the ring.
Turns out, that ain't happening. Which is beautiful.
-
Well that's pretty hysterical. And I see that quite the other way around - This is probably the most conservative thing I have seen in years.
By the way, which liberals are you speaking of? The democrat ones or the Republican ones? Because less the facade of partisanship, this congress just gave the liberals everything they wished for in the next year - And these are the same people expecting to ascend to leadership.... How is that advancing conservatism?
If your argument is that McCarthy is as liberal as Pelosi…you should go get an Alzheimer’s check. McCarthy has already designated strong conservatives to key committees…like Jordan as chair of the Judiciary. What these “useful idiots” are doing blocks any hope of holding anyone on the Left accountable…and it does not lead to putting a stronger Conservative in the Speakership.
All this does is make the country perceive Conservatives as incompetent morons. It achieves nothing else.
-
If your argument is that McCarthy is as liberal as Pelosi…you should go get an Alzheimer’s check.
Comparison supposes anything to the right of Pelosi is better... Even if it is just by a couple ticks. That ain't ever been enough... and its the same old saw as always: We're a little bit better than Democrats.
He's a RINO fully in step with MurderTurdle and the rest of the RINO leadership.
Don't expect me to cry about it.
I will laugh my ass off if he has to move back out of the speaker's office.
McCarthy has already designated strong conservatives to key committees…like Jordan as chair of the Judiciary. What these “useful idiots” blocks any hope of holding anyone on the Left accountable…and it does not lead to putting a stronger Conservative in the Speakership.
NO ONE will be held accountable under McCarthy - And you can take that to the bank.
All this does is make the country perceive Conservatives as incompetent morons.
Except to other conservatives... And that is all that matters.
-
More than 200 House Republicans WANT him as Speaker…why should the 19 override 200+ of their peers.
You idiots are going to either put Hakeem Jeffries in the Speakership or push the moderates to align with Dems for some RINO Speaker…maybe a Liz Cheney or an Adam Kinzinger. How F’ing moronic is that?
God, I sure hope I am never in a fox hole in battle with you. You'll be the first hositing the white flag.
Just because you don't mind settling for a RINO dim capitulating POS, might mean the rest of us want better for our country. Your plan helps perpetuate the Biden agenda. Guess what? Expect McConnell tactics even though we'll have the majority.
Both McC's fold like cheap tents when confronted by political opponents in the other aisle....... Is that your intent?
Addtionally:
(1) Kinzinger and Cheney as Speaker? Here's a little news flash... They lost their bids for re-election for the House. Their legislative careers are basically over.
(2) Quorum rules and understanding of backroom or floor in this case of voting patterns and commitments make the chance of Jeffy becoming Speaker near nil.
So before throwing out implausible scenarios and calling us idiots, you might want to get a bright mirror first.
-
If your argument is that McCarthy is as liberal as Pelosi…you should go get an Alzheimer’s check. McCarthy has already designated strong conservatives to key committees…like Jordan as chair of the Judiciary. What these “useful idiots” are doing blocks any hope of holding anyone on the Left accountable…and it does not lead to putting a stronger Conservative in the Speakership.
All this does is make the country perceive Conservatives as incompetent morons. It achieves nothing else.
Wow, can I quote you that you are calling McCarthy a "Conservative"?
And if you don't mind me adding....
Gaetz had a presser yesterday, and simply stated that all McCarthy had to do, to get the votes for endorsement for speaker was:
1. Agree to term limits vote on the House Floor
2. Bring up Balanced Budget provisons up from committe for review, and conferencing.
3. Bring up Border Protection Plan developed by the Texas Delegate for floor vote.
Please let me know exactly which of those 3 that you find unacceptable or unreasonable.....
-
Except to other conservatives... And that is all that matters.
Like we ever get any fair coverage from MSM anyway. I really don't give a damn what the socialist think of me
-
Like we ever get any fair coverage from MSM anyway. I really don't give a damn what the socialist think of me
TRUTH.
-
Maybe it would take less time if Kevin McCarthy accepted reality.
Kevin does not have a Divine Right to coronate himself to be House Speaker.
-
The speaker does not have to be a member of the house... :pondering:
That is the key to the whole shebang. We need an outsider who has not fallen into the trap of corruption that pollutes everything inside the Beltway, and who frankly does not give a damn about pulling the plug on all of DC's excesses. We need the cheapest bastard we can find.
-
Because less the facade of partisanship, this congress just gave the liberals everything they wished for in the next year - And these are the same people expecting to ascend to leadership.... How is that advancing conservatism?
It should be painfully clear by now that there are members here who are just as threatened by Conservatism as are the Democrats. They advocate strongly for the status quo, championing the Swamp as they forever declare fealty to the greatest Swamp supporter of all.
-
That is the key to the whole shebang. We need an outsider who has not fallen into the trap of corruption that pollutes everything inside the Beltway, and who frankly does not give a damn about pulling the plug on all of DC's excesses. We need the cheapest bastard we can find.
Mike Rowe for Speaker.....
(Now that's a Dirty Job)
-
More than 200 House Republicans WANT him as Speaker…why should the 19 override 200+ of their peers.
That's your argument? Of course the Swamp wants him as Speaker. And you're OK with siding with the Swamp. Nice.
You idiots are going to either put Hakeem Jeffries in the Speakership or push the moderates to align with Dems for some RINO Speaker…maybe a Liz Cheney or an Adam Kinzinger. How F’ing moronic is that?
Cheney and Kinzinger are no longer in the House, thanks to those of us who actually do oppose the Swamp. And if the GOP allows Jeffries to become Speaker, then they don't deserve power.
-
It should be painfully clear by now that there are members here who are just as threatened by Conservatism as are the Democrats. They advocate strongly for the status quo, championing the Swamp as they forever declare fealty to the greatest Swamp supporter of all.
It seems they are forever on the other side from me. Here I am, ready to fight, and they want a passive *yea*... I will never get their sense... :shrug:
-
Mike Rowe for Speaker.....
(Now that's a Dirty Job)
:silly: :beer:
-
If your argument is that McCarthy is as liberal as Pelosi…you should go get an Alzheimer’s check. McCarthy has already designated strong conservatives to key committees…like Jordan as chair of the Judiciary. What these “useful idiots” are doing blocks any hope of holding anyone on the Left accountable…and it does not lead to putting a stronger Conservative in the Speakership.
All this does is make the country perceive Conservatives as incompetent morons. It achieves nothing else.
Jordan is going to chair the Judiciary Committee either way. But that pales in comparison to the budget which is where real power lies.
I want someone who is going to offer up a single spending resolution for each department as our laws dictate instead of stuffing everything into one bill and giving members fifteen minutes to vote up or down. I want someone who is not willing to spend money we don't have. I want someone who is not too much of a coward to say 'Hell No!' to every single thing the Democrats want.
Kevin McCarthy is not that guy.
-
Mike Rowe for Speaker.....
(Now that's a Dirty Job)
Have a feeling that's too dirty even for Mike. :smokin:
-
Bear in mind, a few concessions would have made all the difference. McCarthy waived off the conservatives and gave them nothing. Like you, he expected them to kiss the ring.
Yep. Funny how the GOP leadership has no problem making massive concessions to Democrats. But when it comes to Conservatives, they are all 'scorched earth'.
-
Yep. Funny how the GOP leadership has no problem making massive concessions to Democrats. But when it comes to Conservatives, they are all 'scorched earth'.
And that is the bald truth of it.
-
More than 200 House Republicans WANT him as Speaker…why should the 19 override 200+ of their peers.
You idiots are going to either put Hakeem Jeffries in the Speakership or push the moderates to align with Dems for some RINO Speaker…maybe a Liz Cheney or an Adam Kinzinger. How F’ing moronic is that?
There's a certain faction of conservatives who believe there is no real difference between the GOP and Democrats, and so would really care if it is Jeffries or McCarthy. Obviously, they're perfectly entitled to believe that, but if they truly believe there isn't any difference, then they should just form their own party and see how far they can get.
Getting to the point where McCarthy should consider playing hardball, and force Gaetz and his allies to make a choice.
-
If your argument is that McCarthy is as liberal as Pelosi…you should go get an Alzheimer’s check.
Already saw that with Boehner and Ryan, the last two guys that McCarthy served under. When it came to spending, Ryan turned out to be more liberal than Pelosi. He was the one who suspended the debt ceiling, allowing Obama to spend money that hadn't even been appropriated by Congress. And at budget time, he gave the Democrats everything they asked for, plus even more on top of that.
And McCarthy and Scalise were standing right at his side every step of the way.
-
Wow, can I quote you that you are calling McCarthy a "Conservative"?
And if you don't mind me adding....
Gaetz had a presser yesterday, and simply stated that all McCarthy had to do, to get the votes for endorsement for speaker was:
1. Agree to term limits vote on the House Floor
2. Bring up Balanced Budget provisons up from committe for review, and conferencing.
3. Bring up Border Protection Plan developed by the Texas Delegate for floor vote.
Please let me know exactly which of those 3 that you find unacceptable or unreasonable.....
The second one is the key. Get that through, and you won't need 1 and 3. Reps and Senators won't have the power of the printing press to make careers of their jobs, and ending free stuff to illegals will remove the incentive to cross the border.
-
@Maj. Bill Martin
Gaetz had a presser, and simply stated that all McCarthy had to do, to get their endorsement for speaker was:
1. Agree to term limits vote on the House Floor
2. Bring up Balanced Budget provisons up from committe for review, and conferencing.
3. Bring up Border Protection Plan developed by the Texas Delegate for floor vote.
Please let me know exactly which of those 3 that you find unacceptable or unreasonable.....
Under the same condtions and terms, I wouldn't vote for this dim capitulating RINO either
I find the first two to be unreasonable. Don't know enough about the third.
The first two really piss me off because they are the kind of performative crap we usually see from the left. Exactly what is Gaetz trying to accomplish with those first two? What actual, concrete results does he expect to happen if he gets his vote?
I'll tell you -- literally the only thing that accomplishes is letting him go back to his constituents and say "Hey, I got a vote on term limits and a balanced budget", so he can increase his popularity with those supporters. His motive is as purely political and non-substantive as it gets.
-
If McCarthy had what it takes to be Speaker, he would have had all the votes he needed before the first ballot.
-
A minority pushing forward with no plan:
(https://imgs.search.brave.com/PN-0GqmroLm7mhU9s5ifHF5T5SS5lx7VR4OasQpXTpY/rs:fit:1200:720:1/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWFn/ZXMuZm94dHYuY29t/L3N0YXRpYy5mb3gx/M25ld3MuY29tL3d3/dy5mb3gxM25ld3Mu/Y29tL2NvbnRlbnQv/dXBsb2Fkcy8yMDIw/LzA3LzEyODAvNzIw/L0dFVFRZLXNpZ25p/bmctb2YtZGVjbGFy/YXRpb24tb2YtaW5k/ZXBlbmRlbmNlLmpw/Zz92ZT0xJnRsPTE)
-
I find the first two to be unreasonable. Don't know enough about the third.
BALANCED BUDGETS are unreasonable? REALLY?
They are spending more than we make... They're flatly printing money... and it's unreasonable to rein that in?
If that is so, there is no sense in being a Republican (which I learned long ago over other things).
-
So the very most BASIC fiscal conservatism is clean off the table, huh. *****rollingeyes*****
-
I find the first two to be unreasonable. Don't know enough about the third.
The first two really piss me off because they are the kind of performative crap we usually see from the left. Exactly what is Gaetz trying to accomplish with those first two? What actual, concrete results does he expect to happen if he gets his vote?
I'll tell you -- literally the only thing that accomplishes is letting him go back to his constituents and say "Hey, I got a vote on term limits and a balanced budget", so he can increase his popularity with those supporters. His motive is as purely political and non-substantive as it gets.
Thanks for a carefully thought out response...... My take, howerver is much much different.
First Term limits- It is no secret that the Republic has suffered from career politicans for for up 40 years line their pockets with graft, influence money, and entrenched entitlement. 100's of years ago, we had politicans who though there for their own benefit, at least had the nation's best interest at hand. Now that is not the case. I know it would take a constitional amendment to implement, but there has to be a first step some where.
Balanced Budget? I don't know how old you are, but in my youth, there was at least somewhat of an expectation that our government operate at least close to within budgetary guidelines. That mindset has been shot to hell. SOMETHING has to be be done in this area, or we are going to be flying off a cliff into a morass of a 3rd world economy. $30+T and growing debt is not sustainable.
You may see it as political. I see it as at least being ideologicaly honest, and wanting to make this country better. Do you think McCarthy is a conservative? Do you think he will work more closely with conseratives than dims accross the aisle? Do you think McCarthy will drain the swamp? I'd like to know, and how putting him in the Speaker's chair accomplishes that.
-
So the very most BASIC fiscal conservatism is clean off the table, huh. *****rollingeyes*****
Going Galt seems more relevant by the day. Our own are even turning on us.
-
If McCarthy had what it takes to be Speaker, he would have had all the votes he needed before the first ballot.
Got to remember the last time a 100 years ago, there was no mass communication. Telegraph, telephone, and in person discussions and conferencing crudely was all they had. I can see numerous ballots, as the factions lumbered through the process then
2023? No excuse.
-
Going Galt seems more relevant by the day. Our own are even turning on us.
I seen it coming long ago... But at least now it's out front. They ain't even a bit bashful about it.
-
So the very most BASIC fiscal conservatism is clean off the table, huh. *****rollingeyes*****
Words fail me.
-
There's a certain faction of conservatives who believe there is no real difference between the GOP and Democrats, and so would really care if it is Jeffries or McCarthy. Obviously, they're perfectly entitled to believe that, but if they truly believe there isn't any difference, then they should just form their own party and see how far they can get.
Getting to the point where McCarthy should consider playing hardball, and force Gaetz and his allies to make a choice.
That's what I am afraid of. If this is a negotiating tactic, then fine, but the freedom caucus does not have the votes to dictate the agenda. If they are delusional, we have a problem. A purely republican coalition of 218 must include members who will not support Jim Jordan. Winning the presidency in 2024 is only going to happen with a tenuous majority of of neocons, paleocons, devout Christians, moderate women, conservative democrats, and independents who just like the candidate's personality more than Biden.
-
A purely republican coalition of 218 must include members who will not support Jim Jordan.
But it cannot include members who do.
-
That's what I am afraid of. If this is a negotiating tactic, then fine, but the freedom caucus does not have the votes to dictate the agenda. If they are delusional, we have a problem. A purely republican coalition of 218 must include members who will not support Jim Jordan. Winning the presidency in 2024 is only going to happen with a tenuous majority of of neocons, paleocons, devout Christians, moderate women, conservative democrats, and independents who just like the candidate's personality more than Biden.
Oh I don't know... a Gang of Eight was enough to stifle every conservative move in the senate for a long, long time... Turn about is fair play, ain't it?
-
That's what I am afraid of. If this is a negotiating tactic, then fine, but the freedom caucus does not have the votes to dictate the agenda. If they are delusional, we have a problem. A purely republican coalition of 218 must include members who will not support Jim Jordan. Winning the presidency in 2024 is only going to happen with a tenuous majority of of neocons, paleocons, devout Christians, moderate women, conservative democrats, and independents who just like the candidate's personality more than Biden.
I wouldn't call their 3-4 minor concessions as "dictating the agenda"
This is all on McCarthy's arrogance, and preference to be dealing with dims. We get it.
-
Oh I don't know... a Gang of Eight was enough to stifle every conservative move in the senate for a long, long time... Turn about is fair play, ain't it?
It was only a Gang of Four. The other four were Democrats who still voted with the Democrats.
-
It was only a Gang of Four. The other four were Democrats who still voted with the Democrats.
Still they did some dictating alright.
-
Still they did some dictating alright.
Yep. And the GOP Leadership put up a heck of a lot less protest back then than they are putting up now.
-
I wouldn't call their 3-4 minor concessions as "dictating the agenda"
This is all on McCarthy's arrogance, and preference to be dealing with dims. We get it.
Yep. In reality there needs to be a rewrite of several of the adopted rules.
From McCarthy's viewpoint, 1 and 3 won't likely pass a court challenge, so no big loss to him. It's 2 that he won't agree to, despite the fact these big spending bills only go to the Rats woke projects and their campaign coffers. Cut them off and watch them wither.
Reality is he's down with the status quo.
-
I understand why conservatives in the House do not trust Kevin McCarthy, which really has more to do with the faithlessness of the GOP national leadership, than his own behavior.
But this behavior is not going to get them anywhere. It is useless, harmful to the chances of getting anything done, and it is helping the Democrats.
They need to stop the obstruction, accept McCarthy - flaws and all - and work toward accomplishing things that can be accomplished with a bare majority in the House and Democrats in control of both the Senate and the Presidency.
Nothing good can come or will come from opposition to McCarthy now.
There are no other identifiable and electable choices for Speaker of the House among Republicans. That is reality, as much as it is disagreeable to conservatives.
-
God, I sure hope I am never in a fox hole in battle with you. You'll be the first hositing the white flag.
Just because you don't mind settling for a RINO dim capitulating POS, might mean the rest of us want better for our country. Your plan helps perpetuate the Biden agenda. Guess what? Expect McConnell tactics even though we'll have the majority.
Both McC's fold like cheap tents when confronted by political opponents in the other aisle....... Is that your intent?
Addtionally:
(1) Kinzinger and Cheney as Speaker? Here's a little news flash... They lost their bids for re-election for the House. Their legislative careers are basically over.
(2) Quorum rules and understanding of backroom or floor in this case of voting patterns and commitments make the chance of Jeffy becoming Speaker near nil.
So before throwing out implausible scenarios and calling us idiots, you might want to get a bright mirror first.
So full of crap...and BTW...having been in a foxhole while fighting for this country you can take the foxhole garbage and stuff it.
And...you wanna talk "plausible scenarios"!?!?! Are you kidding me. The tiny 19 person caucus HAS no scenario...they are just blocking everyone else in the caucus...its 200+ to 19. These idiots HAVE no plan...HAVE no candidate of their own...HAVE no rational course forward other than blocking the rest of the conservative Congressmen who WANT McCarthy. This isn't some choice being offerred...its a gimmick to get some publicity for a few guys...with zero alternate plan for a leader who can do what they supposedly want to happen.
Having Jim Jordan on judiciary is not "settling" for RINO's. And by the way, you can complain about RINO's all day...and yet this obstructionism is the biggest gift ever given to the RINO's and the Dems. You've made every conservative look like a dysfunctional idiot. Congrats.
-
Wow, can I quote you that you are calling McCarthy a "Conservative"? Well...200+ of his fellow House members believe he is. Trump and Desantis think he is. So yes. Is he imperfect...yep. But were the Repubs to pick a truly hardline conservative, they'd lose the moderate RINO's...about a dozen votes...and the Speakership would go to Hakeem Jeffries. And compared to Jeffries...McCarthy is Ronald Reagan. Further, were that to happen, there'd be no investigations, no accountability, and nothing but liberal legislation making it to the floor. That's the garbage result your "guy's" actions are bringing to all of us. Not just dumb...irresponsible and embarrassing.
And if you don't mind me adding....
Gaetz had a presser yesterday, and simply stated that all McCarthy had to do, to get the votes for endorsement for speaker was:
1. Agree to term limits vote on the House Floor. Can't pass the Senate so meaningless gesture.
2. Bring up Balanced Budget provisons up from committe for review, and conferencing. Can't pass the Senate so meaningless gesture.
3. Bring up Border Protection Plan developed by the Texas Delegate for floor vote. Can't pass the Senate so meaningless gesture.
And for the record, McCarthy...and the entire caucus...and likely everyone on this board....support all 3 of those items already. Its idiocy to claim otherwise.
Please let me know exactly which of those 3 that you find unacceptable or unreasonable.....
-
There's a certain faction of conservatives who believe there is no real difference between the GOP and Democrats, and so would really care if it is Jeffries or McCarthy. Obviously, they're perfectly entitled to believe that, but if they truly believe there isn't any difference, then they should just form their own party and see how far they can get.
Getting to the point where McCarthy should consider playing hardball, and force Gaetz and his allies to make a choice.
This site is greatly in need of your insight and common sense. Hope you have much more input in the future. Great to see you posting!
-
I prefer Republicans who fight and lose over those who concede defeat without trying.
What whould The Alamo be if the Texans just surrendered to General Santa Ana?
-
I understand why conservatives in the House do not trust Kevin McCarthy, which really has more to do with the faithlessness of the GOP national leadership, than his own behavior.
But this behavior is not going to get them anywhere. It is useless, harmful to the chances of getting anything done, and it is helping the Democrats.
They need to stop the obstruction, accept McCarthy - flaws and all - and work toward accomplishing things that can be accomplished with a bare majority in the House and Democrats in control of both the Senate and the Presidency.
Nothing good can come or will come from opposition to McCarthy now.
There are no other identifiable and electable choices for Speaker of the House among Republicans. That is reality, as much as it is disagreeable to conservatives.
While I'm very happy that what happened yesterday happened, enough is enough. A strong message has been sent and it's time to elect a speaker and move on. If that doesn't happen today, I'll assure you that no one is going to like what comes next.
-
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1610635935921893379/photo/1
-
Meaningless Gestures? So when does anythng start? Maybe a first step?
Sounds like a sound endorsement of the swamp. Thanks for responding.
-
If McCarthy had what it takes to be Speaker, he would have had all the votes he needed before the first ballot.
Then no Republican has what it takes to be Speaker because none of them had the votes to be Speaker before the first ballot.
-
I understand why conservatives in the House do not trust Kevin McCarthy, which really has more to do with the faithlessness of the GOP national leadership, than his own behavior.
No, it's his own behavior. He stood at Paul Ryan's side each and every time Ryan gave Democrats everything they asked for, and then some. He has already moved all of his things into the Speaker's office as it if was some sort of rite of passage. And now he declares Conservatives to be Public Enemy #1. This is 100% on McCarthy himself.
But this behavior is not going to get them anywhere. It is useless, harmful to the chances of getting anything done, and it is helping the Democrats.
Electing McCarthy is helping the Democrats. Paul Ryan was the best Speaker they ever had.
-
Sounds like a sound endorsement of the swamp. Thanks for responding.
What you're doing is helping the swamp...so spare me the glib condescension.
Is Mark Levin a liberal? Sean Hannity? Tucker Carlson? Ron Desantis? President Trump? Jim Jordan? Ted Cruz? All of these staunch conservatives are calling for this dimwitted moralizing to end...because it is HURTING conservatism, not advancing it.
Quit being useful idiots of the Left...and of the swamp. There's a reason Chip Roy and Andy Biggs are not LOVED by the Dems.
-
https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1610635935921893379
-
I seen it coming long ago... But at least now it's out front. They ain't even a bit bashful about it.
Feel free to continue ignoring the actual point I made, and instead keep pretending that I'm against an actual balanced budget.
-
Then no Republican has what it takes to be Speaker because none of them had the votes to be Speaker before the first ballot.
Uh, no. Not a fair comparison. McCarthy alone held the highest GOP Leadership position. It is like saying Reagan didn't have what it takes to be President because he didn't win the Iowa Caucus.
-
No, it's his own behavior. He stood at Paul Ryan's side each and every time Ryan gave Democrats everything they asked for, and then some. He has already moved all of his things into the Speaker's office as it if was some sort of rite of passage. And now he declares Conservatives to be Public Enemy #1. This is 100% on McCarthy himself.
Electing McCarthy is helping the Democrats. Paul Ryan was the best Speaker they ever had.
Huh...than why did the Dems vote in Nancy Pelosi rather than bringing back Paul Ryan? Or perhaps what your claiming about McCarthy is just a stupid hyperbolic assertion given in hopes of justifying the tactics of idiocy.
-
Feel free to continue ignoring the actual point I made, and instead keep pretending that I'm against an actual balanced budget.
It's hard to make the case that you are in favor of a balanced budget when you support someone who is openly opposed to one.
-
Huh...than why did the Dems vote in Nancy Pelosi rather than bringing back Paul Ryan?
Power. No point in settling for Democrat-lite when you can have a real Democrat.
-
I prefer Republicans who fight and lose over those who concede defeat without trying.
What whould The Alamo be if the Texans just surrendered to General Santa Ana?
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. Shame on the man of cultivated taste who permits refinement to develop into fastidiousness that unfits him for doing the rough work of a workaday world.
-Theodore Roosevelt-
-
Feel free to continue ignoring the actual point I made, and instead keep pretending that I'm against an actual balanced budget.
Well, from @catfish1957 :
2. Bring up Balanced Budget provisons up from committe for review, and conferencing.
https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,488463.msg2762576.html#msg2762576
To which you replied:
I find the first two to be unreasonable. Don't know enough about the third.
https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,488463.msg2762919.html#msg2762919
That seems pretty self-explanatory. :shrug:
-
Thanks for a carefully thought out response...... My take, howerver is much much different.
First Term limits- It is no secret that the Republic has suffered from career politicians for for up 40 years line their pockets with graft, influence money, and entrenched entitlement. 100's of years ago, we had politicians who though there for their own benefit, at least had the nation's best interest at hand. Now that is not the case. know it would take a constitutional amendment to implement, but there has to be a first step some where.
But this isn't even a first step. It's just blatant pandering that Gaetz already knows with 100% certainty will fail.
A constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. We have a razor-thin (at best) margin in the House, the Democrats control the Senate, and we don't have a Republican President with the bully pulpit to apply pressure. It has absolutely zero chance of passing even the House with the required margin. And yet, THAT is the issue that Gaetz apparently has chosen as his red line.
How much of a non-substantive, performative clownshow is that? If he was going to the mat over something like raising the debt ceiling, or more money for the border, or at least something that had even a small chance of success, that would be different. But for the sake of getting purely symbolic votes on issues he knows will never even make it out of the House, he's handing Democrats the 2024 theme that Republicans are not even capable of governing themselves, much less the country.
I'd love to see Congress pass a Balanced Budget Amendment (even though it would never make it through the states), but trying it when you actually have a majority in the House and Senate makes a hell of a lot more sense. But it is simply ridiculous to hand the Democrats a ready-made example of Republican incompetence for the sake of purely performative votes you know ahead of time that you are going to lose.
What I'd like to see even more than a Balanced Budget Amendment in Congress is moving entitlement programs to the state level. Because states do have balanced budget requirements, so you'd get the impact of a Balanced Budget Amendment without having to meet the impossible standard of 38 states ratifying it.
-
Well, from @catfish1957 :https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,488463.msg2762576.html#msg2762576
To which you replied:https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,488463.msg2762919.html#msg2762919
That seems pretty self-explanatory. :shrug:
For some reason, you seem to equate holding a meaningless vote in the House on a balanced budget amendment that is 100% certain to fall short of the 2/3rds required threshold with actually having a Balanced Budget Amendment added to the Constitution.
-
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. Shame on the man of cultivated taste who permits refinement to develop into fastidiousness that unfits him for doing the rough work of a workaday world.
-Theodore Roosevelt-
We're not talking "deeds" or "striving". We're talking about hurting the GOP's chances to win more seats in 2024 for the sake of a vote that you know ahead of time you will lose.
-
For some reason, you seem to equate holding a meaningless vote in the House on a balanced budget amendment that is 100% certain to fall short of the 2/3rds required threshold with actually having a Balanced Budget Amendment added to the Constitution.
Something so "meaningless". Yet McCarthy couldn't go along with it? THAT is stupidity. McCarthy had the choice to give up something "meaningless" to become Speaker, yet chose not to. Amazing. Looks like Establishment principles matter more than political expediency.
-
We're not talking "deeds" or "striving". We're talking about hurting the GOP's chances to win more seats in 2024 for the sake of a vote that you know ahead of time you will lose.
Are you freaking kidding me? It is this exact mentality perpetrated by McCarthy right now that cost us the House and Senate in 2018. Win more seats in 2024? With more anti-Conservative Democrat-lite? Give me a break.
-
Power. No point in settling for Democrat-lite when you can have a real Democrat.
As I said, if you think McCarthy and Pelosi agree on policy issues....there's a box of rocks on my desk that can outthink you. Most likely, you're simply saying it because you can't justify your position without making that kind of absurd hyperbolic assertion...but on the off chance you actually believe it...wow.
-
As I said, if you think McCarthy and Pelosi agree on policy issues....there's a box of rocks on my desk that can outthink you. Most likely, you're simply saying it because you can't justify your position without making that kind of absurd hyperbolic assertion...but on the off chance you actually believe it...wow.
Policy issues? No. But when it comes to getting Pelosi policy passed, McCarthy does nothing to stop it. Nothing. Zero. Zip. Nada. The recent $1.7 trillion spending package is a prime example.
-
Huh...than why did the Dems vote in Nancy Pelosi rather than bringing back Paul Ryan? Or perhaps what your claiming about McCarthy is just a stupid hyperbolic assertion given in hopes of justifying the tactics of idiocy.
Ryan rammed through the evisceration of ObamaCare. If not for McCain's personal pettiness towards Trump (and arguably vice-versa as well), it would have been gutted.
-
Ryan rammed through the evisceration of ObamaCare.
The evisceration? Lies make Jesus cry. The ONLY thing that got changed was the penalty for not having health insurance. Meanwhile, the taxpayer continues to be on the hook for 'Free health insurance' for a continually growing percentage of the population.
-
Policy issues? No. But when it comes to getting Pelosi policy passed, McCarthy does nothing to stop it. Nothing. Zero. Zip. Nada. The recent $1.7 trillion spending package is a prime example.
There WAS nothing McCarthy could do to stop it. Zip. Zero. Nada. Unlike the GOP, the Dems...despite internal disagreement...are smart enough to vote along party lines when they need to. Which means no GOP house leader had ANY power to stop the 1.7 trillion dollar package.
You're flailing at windmills and destroying Conservatives chances in 2024...we are going to lose the House and the Presidency because of this stupidity.
What citizen in their right mind would vote for the GOP after the fiasco these 19 idiots are pulling?
We have a caucus. The caucus votes for a Speaker. Whoever gets the majority within the caucus, all Republicans vote for in the larger House vote. That's the ONLY formula that doesn't make everyone of us look like dip$hit morons. If 20 idiots on the right of the party won't do that...or 20 idiots on the left ofthe party won't do that...the Dems win. So congrats, you've handed the Dems a huge win here.
-
McCarthy has now lost FIVE votes. He can't get it done, time to step off.
-
McCarthy lost another vote in this 5th round after Trump sent out a a message of support.
-
There WAS nothing McCarthy could do to stop it. Zip. Zero. Nada. Unlike the GOP, the Dems...despite internal disagreement...are smart enough to vote along party lines when they need to. Which means no GOP house leader had ANY power to stop the 1.7 trillion dollar package.
A spending bill which originated in the US Senate in violation of the Constitution of the United States of America, and there was nothing McCarthy could do to stop it? I prefer a Speaker who is willing to fight.
-
McCarthy has now lost FIVE votes. He can't get it done, time to step off.
Just as his supporters have argued that there was nothing McCarthy could do to stop Democrats, it is clear now that he is equally impotent when it comes to Republicans.
-
Just as his supporters have argued that there was nothing McCarthy could do to stop Democrats, it is clear now that he is equally impotent when it comes to Republicans.
Imagine if this were the other way around. The screechy wailing by the swampy RINO's for a consensus candidate would be excruciating.
They can't even live up to the rules they put on everyone else. I see no reason to give into their entitlement.
-
For some reason, you seem to equate holding a meaningless vote in the House on a balanced budget amendment that is 100% certain to fall short of the 2/3rds required threshold with actually having a Balanced Budget Amendment added to the Constitution.
To the contrary - Such a meaningless vote should be a no-brainer to secure his speakership... Especially one that is sure to fail. And he did not have to promise to bring it to the vote, but only to bring it to conference - to allow the debate.
That's a pretty meaningless concession. And he wouldn't give it the time of day.
Which is always the case - fiscal conservatism has been thrown under the bus consecutively ever since '94. And your boy, no doubt, will do the same.
-
Eh, make a deal with the Democrats to change the rules for election of Speaker so that only a plurality rather than a majority is required. So only one more round of voting.
Give Gaetz and his buddies a clear choice. Either vote for McCarthy, or Jeffries is the new Speaker.
-
Term limits would be more effective than balanced budget amendment.
With a balanced budget amendment, Big Government would tinker with the definition and the accounting principles of "balanced budget" until that phrase was meaning less.
Term lmits puts accountability in the hands of the voters and not in Swamp Creatures.
-
Term limits would be more effective than balanced budget amendment.
With a balanced budget amendment, Big Government would tinker with the definition and the accounting principles of "balanced budget" until that phrase was meaning less.
Term lmits puts accountability in the hands of the voters and not in Swamp Creatures.
Term limits won't do anything other than limit your choices and make the political graft even worse than it already is.
-
Term limits would be more effective than balanced budget amendment.
With a balanced budget amendment, Big Government would tinker with the definition and the accounting principles of "balanced budget" until that phrase was meaning less.
Term lmits puts accountability in the hands of the voters and not in Swamp Creatures.
Federal term limits is unconstitutional. You'd have to go state by state.
-
Eh, make a deal with the Democrats to change the rules for election of Speaker so that only a plurality rather than a majority is required. So only one more round of voting.
Give Gaetz and his buddies a clear choice. Either vote for McCarthy, or Jeffries is the new Speaker.
If the GOP is willing to do that, then don't tell me about all the difference. Because there ain't none.
-
Might require a Federal Constituional Amendment, but that's why we need Republicans who fight, not appease.
-
Might require a Federal Constituional Amendment, but that's why we need Republicans who fight, not appease.
No... It will not stand. The state is sovereign in elections, not the fed.
-
Why does the Constitutional Amendment to limit Presidential terms still stand?
Why does the Constitutional minimum age of elected Federal Reps (25), Senators(30), and Pres(35) still stand?
A Term Limits Constituional Amendment should be put forth and tested in the states, courts, and Congress. Progress can't be made if nothing is tried.
-
Why does the Constitutional Amendment to limit Presidential terms still stand?
Why does the Constitutional minimum age of elected Federal Reps (25), Senators(30), and Pres(35) still stand?
A Term Limits Constituional Amendment should be put forth and tested in the states, courts, and Congress. Progress can't be made if nothing is tried.
In the states, I agree... I believe SCOTUS already struck it down in the fed.
-
Imagine if this were the other way around. The screechy wailing by the swampy RINO's for a consensus candidate would be excruciating.
They can't even live up to the rules they put on everyone else. I see no reason to give into their entitlement.
If they had actually done that, you'd be right. But they haven't - you're literally just "imagining" what they might do if the situation was reversed. So its kind of bogus to spin this as them "not living up to the rules they put on everyone else."
-
Did SCOTUS strike down a law or a ratified Federal Constitutional Amenment?
I'd like to see a ratified Federal Constiution Term Limits Amendment be tested.
-
Did SCOTUS strike down a law or a ratified Federal Constitutional Amenment?
I'd like to see a ratified Federal Constiution Term Limits Amendment be tested.
I believe a law, but I don't remember.
And I do not want a federal term limit. State is fine, if that's what they want.
-
If they had actually done that, you'd be right. But they haven't - you're literally just "imagining" what they might do if the situation was reversed. So its kind of bogus to spin this as them "not living up to the rules they put on everyone else."
Apparently you've missed the last 50 years of GOP politics. Conservatives are always expected to fall in line, and the swampy RINO's never shut up no matter how much they are beat, or fail, or lose.
-
Did SCOTUS strike down a law or a ratified Federal Constitutional Amenment?
I'd like to see a ratified Federal Constiution Term Limits Amendment be tested.
The Supreme Court struck down a state-level attempt to impose term limits on Members of Congress as well as a federal statute. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_limits_in_the_United_States#Congress
-
Did SCOTUS strike down a law or a ratified Federal Constitutional Amenment?
I'd like to see a ratified Federal Constiution Term Limits Amendment be tested.
A Constitutional Amendment obviously can't be unconstitutional, but you need 2/3 of both houses plus 3/4 of the states for ratification.
-
Either vote for McCarthy, or Jeffries is the new Speaker.
See logical fallacies: False Dilemma
-
The Supreme Court struck down a state-level attempt to impose term limits on Members of Congress as well as a federal statute. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_limits_in_the_United_States#Congress
In 1995, SCOTUS struck down various state laws that limited the terms for US representatives. In the opinion, they said that states could not lawfully impose restrictions on running for office in excess of those stated in the Constitution. So by that reasoning, Congress could not do it either by law.
A Constitutional Amendment obviously would work, but you need 2/3 of both houses plus 3/4 of the states for ratification.
I stand corrected - I knew it to be deemed unconstitutional at the federal level, but was unaware of the states.
Thank you.
-
In 1995, SCOTUS struck down various state laws that limited the terms for US representatives. In the opinion, they said that states could not lawfully impose restrictions on running for office in excess of those stated in the Constitution. So by that reasoning, Congress could not do it either by law.
A Constitutional Amendment obviously would work, but you need 2/3 of both houses plus 3/4 of the states for ratification.
So for McCarthy to cut a deal for the Conservative votes he needs to become Speaker, all he had to do was to allow such vote. It would have been an effortless exercise for him and would have cost him nothing. Yet he couldn't bring himself to say 'yes' to Conservatives. Wow. Just wow.
-
Kevin McCarthy lacks the political intelligence, carisma, and saavy to be Speaker.
-
See logical fallacies: False Dilemma
How is that a logical fallacy if the rules are changed to make it a plurality rather than majority for Speaker?
-
So for McCarthy to cut a deal for the Conservative votes he needs to become Speaker, all he had to do was to allow such vote. It would have been an effortless exercise for him and would have cost him nothing. Yet he couldn't bring himself to say 'yes' to Conservatives. Wow. Just wow.
Well, if you believe that was literally the only demand that Gaetz was making - which I don't - then McCarthy should do it unless there is some procedural reason that makes it a bigger deal than it sounds. I'm not well-versed enough in House procedures to know the answer to that.
What I do know for certain is that purely symbolic votes doomed to fail in the House are a stupid reason to be embarrassing the GOP like this.
-
How is that a logical fallacy if the rules are changed to make it a plurality rather than majority for Speaker?
So if A and B and C and D, then and only then can a binary option be considered with high enough probability to discount any other outcomes? Sure, if that works for you.
-
What I do know for certain is that purely symbolic votes doomed to fail in the House are a stupid reason to be embarrassing the GOP like this.
Well then maybe McCarthy should end it by withdrawing his name from consideration instead of repeating the same vote over and over without offering anything different.
Good grief, it isn't that difficult. Just give the Conservatives something here to ensure that this won't be two more years of Paul Ryan.
-
Kevin McCarthy lacks the political intelligence, charisma, and savvy to be Speaker.
I bet Pelosi could take him if they put the gloves on.
-
I bet Pelosi could take him if they put the gloves on.
She's got so much Botox, she wouldn't feel it he landed a blow.
-
McCarthy has now lost FIVE votes. He can't get it done, time to step off.
He'll lose 50. Or a hundred. As many as it takes. No 15-20 people get to control the whole caucus, that's a precedent that can never be allowed.
But this isn't on him, its on the tiny number of morons who want to tell the other 200 members of the caucus who they can't vote for.
-
He'll lose 50. Or a hundred. As many as it takes. No 15-20 people get to control the whole caucus, that's a precedent that can never be allowed.
But it is OK for 1 person (with ZERO chance of winning) to control the whole caucus by refusing to step aside.
Got it. 15-20 people? Not OK. One person? OK.
But this isn't on him, its on the tiny number of morons who want to tell the other 200 members of the caucus who they can't vote for.
Bullshit. Not one of the 21 are telling the other 201 who they can't vote for. Not a single one. The bottom line here is that McCarthy does not have the votes to become Speaker. So he can continue his tantrum by demanding more votes. Or he can step aside, call off his threats, and allow his Party to choose someone else.
-
Well then maybe McCarthy should end it by withdrawing his name from consideration instead of repeating the same vote over and over without offering anything different.
Good grief, it isn't that difficult. Just give the Conservatives something here to ensure that this won't be two more years of Paul Ryan.
I'm feeling like this is all just a preview of the inevitable trainwreck when the former President and a bunch of his supporters refuse to support whomever else may win the 2024 GOP primary. "We may not have had the votes to win, but we have enough to make sure the guy who did regrets it."
-
The former President and a bunch of his supporters are the ones backing McCarthy here. Just sayin'.
-
He'll lose 50. Or a hundred. As many as it takes. No 15-20 people get to control the whole caucus, that's a precedent that can never be allowed.
But this isn't on him, its on the tiny number of morons who want to tell the other 200 members of the caucus who they can't vote for.
I tried to find the answer to my question prior to asking here...to no satisfactory result.
I realize no one is sworn in at this time. But, how many members are there in the Freedom Caucus today, that we know of? I'm curious if the FC has split.
If there are only 20 members it could be they need to grow their caucus to a much longer number. Although this "stand" they are making may/may not be great...they are outnumbered and may need to use different tactics. It seems to me that the other 200 plus members aren't budging either.
-
He'll lose 50. Or a hundred. As many as it takes. No 15-20 people get to control the whole caucus, that's a precedent that can never be allowed.
But this isn't on him, its on the tiny number of morons who want to tell the other 200 members of the caucus who they can't vote for.
You do know that the constitution was structured so that the minority doesn't get run over by the majority. They put many roadblocks in place on purpose to slow things down and try to prevent the tyranny of the majority.
-
You do know that the constitution was structured so that the minority doesn't get run over by the majority. They put many roadblocks in place on purpose to slow things down and try to prevent the tyranny of the majority.
:yowsa: And it is time these political hacks remember it...
-
He'll lose 50. Or a hundred. As many as it takes. No 15-20 people get to control the whole caucus, that's a precedent that can never be allowed.
But this isn't on him, its on the tiny number of morons who want to tell the other 200 members of the caucus who they can't vote for.
Rep. Ken Buck says 'at some point' McCarthy needs to step aside in speaker race
Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO), who has voted for Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) on every ballot in the House speaker election, said the time is approaching for the Republican conference to make a decision on whom to elect.
Buck told CNN on Wednesday afternoon that tensions are running high among GOP lawmakers and that further conflict is brewing as factions may make good on their threats as the election approaches the sixth ballot. Some centrist Republicans have floated the possibility of working with Democrats to appoint a unifying candidate if McCarthy can't win..
https://www.mediaite.com/news/this-is-insulting-ex-trump-spox-blasts-white-republicans-for-using-black-republicans-as-shields-after-byron-donalds-nom/
What say you, Gaetz? Don't clam up now, jackass.
-
If there are only 20 members it could be they need to grow their caucus to a much longer number. Although this "stand" they are making may/may not be great...they are outnumbered and may need to use different tactics. It seems to me that the other 200 plus members aren't budging either.
The other 200 aren't budging because they know there will be severe retaliation against them if they go on record opposing McCarthy with McCarthy eventually winning. Take McCarthy out of the picture, and you will see who GOP Reps really support. Some will back Scalise because they are comfortable with the Establishment. But you will have other supporting someone different because they are sick of living under the current system. But as for now, they continue to hedge their bets by backing McCarthy even though he has little chance of winning.
-
But it is OK for 1 person (with ZERO chance of winning) to control the whole caucus by refusing to step aside.
Got it. 15-20 people? Not OK. One person? OK
Except it really isn't just one. It's also those among McCarthy's backers who will refuse to vote for anyone but McCarthy - likely significantly more than on the conservative end.
Then you have to consider another faction of those so pissed at the minority holding the Speakership hostage that they'd sooner see someone outside the conference win than knuckle under.
-
He'll lose 50. Or a hundred. As many as it takes. No 15-20 people get to control the whole caucus, that's a precedent that can never be allowed.
But this isn't on him, its on the tiny number of morons who want to tell the other 200 members of the caucus who they can't vote for.
The requirement for Speakership is half the votes plus 1. If he is not able to provide the leadership to earn those votes, then step aside for someone who can.
-
IMO, the political climate is ripe for a breakaway from BOTH parties.
A major Third-party would siphon so much 'blood', they both would bleed out.
-
He'll lose 50. Or a hundred. As many as it takes. No 15-20 people get to control the whole caucus, that's a precedent that can never be allowed.
But this isn't on him, its on the tiny number of morons who want to tell the other 200 members of the caucus who they can't vote for.
I'm guessing the Gang of Five won't see the inside of a committee room during this Congress --- no one, except the Democrats, like what they're orchestrating or the position it's put them in.
-
The requirement for Speakership is half the votes plus 1. If he is not able to provide the leadership to earn those votes, then step aside for someone who can.
And what if nobody else can because there are other factions unwilling to switch?
-
And what if nobody else can because there are other factions unwilling to switch?
Then I guess McCarthy needs to get some Rat votes.
-
And what if nobody else can because there are other factions unwilling to switch?
Only one way to find out.
-
And what if nobody else can because there are other factions unwilling to switch?
How about we wait and see what happens instead? This has only been going on for two days. Hardly an earth shattering delay.
-
I'm guessing the Gang of Five won't see the inside of a committee room during this Congress ---
This right here is what is wrong with Washington. This right here is why Kevin McCarthy cannot be allowed to be Speaker.
-
The other 200 aren't budging because they know there will be severe retaliation against them if they go on record opposing McCarthy with McCarthy eventually winning. Take McCarthy out of the picture, and you will see who GOP Reps really support. Some will back Scalise because they are comfortable with the Establishment. But you will have other supporting someone different because they are sick of living under the current system. But as for now, they continue to hedge their bets by backing McCarthy even though he has little chance of winning.
I admit that I am naive in the ways politics work. But if McCarthy has little chance of winning, maybe it would be wiser for the 200+ to peel off now and support someone else? Or would that increase Jefferies chances?
-
You do know that the constitution was structured so that the minority doesn't get run over by the majority. They put many roadblocks in place on purpose to slow things down and try to prevent the tyranny of the majority.
The constitution has no bearing on the Party caucus rules...which are quite simple. Majority....especially a massive super majority of 202-20...rules.
-
The requirement for Speakership is half the votes plus 1. If he is not able to provide the leadership to earn those votes, then step aside for someone who can.
Well...the only other candidates nominated got, at most, 19 votes...so I'd say there IS no other person for him to step aside for.
-
But it is OK for 1 person (with ZERO chance of winning) to control the whole caucus by refusing to step aside.
Got it. 15-20 people? Not OK. One person? OK.
Bullshit. Not one of the 21 are telling the other 201 who they can't vote for. Not a single one. The bottom line here is that McCarthy does not have the votes to become Speaker. So he can continue his tantrum by demanding more votes. Or he can step aside, call off his threats, and allow his Party to choose someone else.
The other 202 Republicans HAVE chosen who they want for Speaker. Why should 19 morons get to override that?
-
I admit that I am naive in the ways politics work. But if McCarthy has little chance of winning, maybe it would be wiser for the 200+ to peel off now and support someone else? Or would that increase Jefferies chances?
No, that would not increase Jeffries' chances. But the 200 won't peel off as long as there is a possibility that McCarthy becomes Speaker, especially after his Democrat-esque tirades about his willingness to abuse his political power to settle scores against his fellow Republicans.
-
RINO snorts:
"A Term Limits Constituional Amendment should be put forth and tested in the states, courts, and Congress. Progress can't be made if nothing is tried."
I'm surprised this would be a sticking point with McCarthy in the first place.
Might as well have the vote.
Pro forma.
It won't pass, anyway.
Term limits will NEVER become the law of the land.
Not under the existing Constitution...
-
The other 202 Republicans HAVE chosen who they want for Speaker. Why should 19 morons get to override that?
Because 232 Representatives HAVE chosen that they don't want McCarthy for Speaker.
-
Because 232 Representatives HAVE chosen that they don't want McCarthy for Speaker.
Oh. So now you side with 212 Democrats. So its rather clear who is with who now.
This stupidity is going to give us a Justin Amash, Lynn Cheney, or an Adam Kinzinger as Speaker of the House...all because we have 19 morons with a severe case of moral narcissism.
Anyone supporting this garbage...is...like Hoodat in his post above...now WITH the 212 Democrats in the House. Be known by the company you keep.
-
Oh. So now you side with 212 Democrats. So its rather clear who is with who now.
Nope. Not at all. You've just seemed to have forgotten how Speakers get elected.
This stupidity is going to give us a Justin Amash, Lynn Cheney, or an Adam Kinzinger as Speaker of the House...all because we have 19 morons with a severe case of moral narcissism.
None of those three currently serve in the House. But if you really fear one of them becoming Speaker, maybe you should give that narcissist Kevin McCarthy a call and ask him to move his furniture back out of the Speaker's office and withdraw his name for the good of the Party.
Anyone supporting this garbage...is...like Hoodat in his post above...now WITH the 212 Democrats in the House. Be known by the company you keep.
I'm not the one willing to cut deals for Democrat votes just to save face.
Let me be clear here:
TO HELL WITH THE GOP ESTABLISHMENT !
TO HELL WITH KEVIN McCARTHY !!!
Give us a Speaker who is willing to fight against the Uniparty.
-
Opposition to McCarthy may have to be rethought now that Vice President Mike Pence has thrown his support toward the Speaker-elect.
-
Opposition to McCarthy may have to be rethought now that Vice President Mike Pence has thrown his support toward the Speaker-elect.
Shouldn't change anything. Establishment supporters gonna be establishment supporters.
-
The other 202 Republicans HAVE chosen who they want for Speaker. Why should 19 morons get to override that?
Because that is how majority-vote rules work. At the margin, a small number of dissenters carries outsize weight.
To be perfectly honest, I have a hard time understanding why whatever the GOP holdouts are demanding in exchange for their votes could be worse than whatever the democrats will demand in exchange for theirs.
It also strikes me that neither faction thought their strategy through well enough to have a robust fall-back if their first gambit failed. Which, to be perfectly honest, weighs more against McCarthy than against the dissenters.
-
Nope. Not at all. You've just seemed to have forgotten how Speakers get elected. The way it works is you vote within your caucus, and then everyone in the party votes for whomever won the caucus vote. Doing anything else simply helps the Left and the Dems...which is why anyone with a functioning brain cell holds to that practice.
None of those three currently serve in the House. But if you really fear one of them becoming Speaker, maybe you should give that narcissist Kevin McCarthy a call and ask him to move his furniture back out of the Speaker's office and withdraw his name for the good of the Party. They don't have to serve in the House to be Speaker, and the holdup here is the 19 morons, not the 202 member of the GOP caucus who support the ONLY candidate on the right with substantial votes.
I'm not the one willing to cut deals for Democrat votes just to save face. Sure you are, voting for anyone but whom the GOP caucus chose for the Speaker IS cutting a deal and serving the Dems. Everything these 19 idiots do is serving the Left...and doing serious long term damage to conservatism.
Let me be clear here:
TO HELL WITH THE GOP ESTABLISHMENT !
TO HELL WITH KEVIN McCARTHY !!!
Give us a Speaker who is willing to fight against the Uniparty.
You say "give us a speaker....". But these morons HAVE NOT DONE SO...or the ones they did vote for and nominate HAVE NO SUPPORT FROM THE REST OF THE GOP CAUCUS. My god, can people really be this thick?
-
Because that is how majority-vote rules work. At the margin, a small number of dissenters carries outsize weight.
To be perfectly honest, I have a hard time understanding why whatever the GOP holdouts are demanding in exchange for their votes could be worse than whatever the democrats will demand in exchange for theirs.
That is how the rules work, of course. The hope being that no one is dumb enough to abuse these rules in such a way as to surrender the Speakership to the Dems...which is what they are doing. McCarthy has made many concessions...and virtually the entire caucus supports this little list of legislative demands (which are moot as they either cannot pass the Senate or have already been deemed unconstitutional). This is not on McCarthy, its on these idiots who have no alternative, but simply want to hand this off to the Dems while making Republicans look like they can't govern an elementary school council. We are, in real time, watching these 19 morons give away the White House, the House, and the Senate in 2024...and yes, its sickening.
-
The other 202 Republicans HAVE chosen who they want for Speaker. Why should 19 morons get to override that?
Maybe he should have got more Republicans elected.
-
Maybe he should have got more Republicans elected.
Maybe we all should have, as that blame is shared across all Republicans including us as voters.
-
That is how the rules work, of course. The hope being that no one is dumb enough to abuse these rules in such a way as to surrender the Speakership to the Dems...which is what they are doing. McCarthy has made many concessions...and virtually the entire caucus supports this little list of legislative demands (which are moot as they either cannot pass the Senate or have already been deemed unconstitutional). This is not on McCarthy, its on these idiots who have no alternative, but simply want to hand this off to the Dems while making Republicans look like they can't govern an elementary school council. We are, in real time, watching these 19 morons give away the White House, the House, and the Senate in 2024...and yes, its sickening.
Question: is anything this merry band of dissenters has demanded worse than what the democrats would demand for their votes?
-
You say "give us a speaker....". But these morons HAVE NOT DONE SO...or the ones they did vote for and nominate HAVE NO SUPPORT FROM THE REST OF THE GOP CAUCUS. My god, can people really be this thick?
Again, take McCarthy out of the equation, and you will get your Speaker. Do you not see that Reps are afraid to vote against him lest they lose all perks, privileges, and committee assignments for daring to go against the emperor?
-
Remember this 'very first day' promise?
https://twitter.com/kevinomccarthy/status/1589663823732310017
-
Maybe he should have got more Republicans elected.
Or maybe the Freedom Caucus should have elected more than 30 members.
If you thought here was some targeting of hard-liners in the 2020 GOP primaries, you are going to see a freaking witch hunt in 2024. The intra-party warfare that will be created over this, and the mileage Democrats are going to get out of this in 2024, is going to dwarf whatever allegedly conservative gains Perry, etc , hope to get out of this.
This isn't how you gain power as a movement. It's how you marginalize yourself.
-
https://twitter.com/AndrewDesiderio/status/1610755726028451840
-
. . . and the mileage Democrats are going to get out of this in 2024 . . .
lol
-
Andrew Desiderio
@AndrewDesiderio
·
Follow
NEW: MCCARTHY just walked into a closed-door meeting with his detractors.
What's he going to threaten them with this time? Will he take away their parking spots?
-
Question: is anything this merry band of dissenters has demanded worse than what the democrats would demand for their votes?
If they're demand is the removal of the person over 200 Republicans want...as it seems to be...then yes. Because, once you allow any small group inthe party to have a veto over who is Speaker, chaos rules and nothing can be achieved.
What's next...10 RINO's hold the whole party hostage to get everything THEY want? Where does that end? Most likely with someone like Liz Cheney as Speaker of the House.
-
What's next...10 RINO's hold the whole party hostage to get everything THEY want? Where does that end?
Right now, 201 RINOs are holding the whole Party hostage.
-
If they're demand is the removal of the person over 200 Republicans want...as it seems to be...then yes. Because, once you allow any small group inthe party to have a veto over who is Speaker, chaos rules and nothing can be achieved.
What's next...10 RINO's hold the whole party hostage to get everything THEY want? Where does that end? Most likely with someone like Liz Cheney as Speaker of the House.
LOL!
Everything?
When do conservatives get anything they want. Pretty much never due to people who surrender every battle.
-
Right now, 201 RINOs are holding the whole Party hostage.
That is the party...201 Republicans chosen by millions of Republican and conservative voters. If your claim is that they are all RINO's than...well...that's a you problem. There are some RINOs, as there has to be in any majority.
Ask yourself why people like Trump and Desantis, Cruz and Levin, want this dumba$$ery to end.
-
Ask yourself why people like Trump and Desantis, Cruz and Levin, want this dumba$$ery to end.
I want it to end, too. So McCarthy needs to put his ego away and step aside for the good of the Party.
-
But since you mentioned DeSantis:
https://twitter.com/BrianCraigShow/status/1597542765168132098
-
But since you mentioned DeSantis:
https://twitter.com/BrianCraigShow/status/1597542765168132098
Ummmm.....that was from 2017.
-
DeSantis First to Question McCarthy's Leadership in Republican-led House
DeSantis accused Ryan and McCarthy of barring him and other Republicans from investigating the Clintons and Awan.
MICHELLE ROSENBERG | NOVEMBER 28, 2022
The pushback against House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s leadership continues and it appears that the case against the embattled and potential future Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives was first made by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.
During an exclusive interview with Floridian Publisher Javier Manjarrés in October 2017, then-Congressman Ron DeSantis first expressed his lack of faith in House Republican Leadership over its refusal to investigate the Clinton Foundation and former House staffer Imran Awan.
Imran Awan, the House IT aide who was associated with an individual with ties to the terror group Hezbollah and arrested on a federal bank fraud charge, was never called to testify before the House Oversight Committee DeSantis sat on, or any other congressional committee under then-Speaker Paul Ryan and then-Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy.
“Part of the frustration that I have had, the House and Republican rule has not been as effective as it needs to be in doing oversight,” said Rep. DeSantis. . . .
https://floridianpress.com/2022/11/desantis-first-to-question-mccarthys-leadership-in-republican-led-house/
Thank you for bringing up DeSantis, @Mesaclone . I am now more convinced than ever that the 21 Republican rebels are doing the right thing.
-
Ummmm.....that was from 2017.
Yeah. McCarthy sucked back then. And he still sucks today.
-
I want it to end, too. So McCarthy needs to put his ego away and step aside for the good of the Party.
There's no one else the other 202 House GOP members support...so your plan leads to unending stalemate. Brilliant.
-
There's no one else the other 202 House GOP members support...so your plan leads to unending stalemate. Brilliant.
Remove McCarthy from the equation, and you will find that your premise is false.
-
Remove McCarthy from the equation, and you will find that your premise is false.
Doubt it. The RINO's won't accept a Freedom Caucus or a "Trump" guy...so who do you think that leaves who can meet your "perfect Conservative ideal?
-
Doubt it. The RINO's won't accept a Freedom Caucus or a "Trump" guy...so who do you think that leaves who can meet your "perfect Conservative ideal?
So you think the 201 will simply not vote, or vote 'Present', if McCarthy withdraws? There's not a single other person they would vote for?
-
So you think the 201 will simply not vote, or vote 'Present', if McCarthy withdraws? There's not a single other person they would vote for?
I think you'll get a LESS conservative Speaker...or a Dem...or an outsider Republican like Amash, Cheney or Kinzinger. But what's worse, is these 19 idiots have gutted every Conservative candidates credibility through the 24 election cycle. We all look like morons who can't govern and voters do not forgive incompetence...so thanks for that...hope you guys are excited for a Dem House, White House and Senate thanks to this "holdout".
-
I think you'll get a LESS conservative Speaker...or a Dem...or an outsider Republican like Amash, Cheney or Kinzinger. But what's worse, is these 19 idiots have gutted every Conservative candidates credibility through the 24 election cycle. We all look like morons who can't govern and voters do not forgive incompetence...so thanks for that...hope you guys are excited for a Dem House, White House and Senate thanks to this "holdout".
You are really full of it running around with your hair on fire. Cheney or Kinzinger, really? They aren't even in the house anymore and are pretty universally hated by Republicans.
All the actual conservatives I know are grateful the hold outs are taking an actual stab at the swamp status quo trying to move it in a different direction.
-
You are really full of it running around with your hair on fire. Cheney or Kinzinger, really? They aren't even in the house anymore and are pretty universally hated by Republicans.
All the actual conservatives I know are grateful the hold outs are taking an actual stab at the swamp status quo trying to move it in a different direction.
10 Rinos and the Dem vote and they are Speaker.
-
10 Rinos and the Dem vote and they are Speaker.
Then you really would get a Republican revolt against DC. Cheney and Kinzinger are the Democrats useful idiots, not someone they want as their leader.
-
Then you really would get a Republican revolt against DC. Cheney and Kinzinger are the Democrats useful idiots, not someone they want as their leader.
It wouldn't matter. The 10 RINO's don't care about a Republican revolt...and neither do the Dems. They can run the whole place the way they want to...and it will look like THEY are the grownups in DC. That's what you are brewing with this idiocy.
-
Oh. So now you side with 212 Democrats. So its rather clear who is with who now.
This stupidity is going to give us a Justin Amash, Lynn Cheney, or an Adam Kinzinger as Speaker of the House...all because we have 19 morons with a severe case of moral narcissism.
Anyone supporting this garbage...is...like Hoodat in his post above...now WITH the 212 Democrats in the House. Be known by the company you keep.
I would be thrilled with a Justin Amash speakership. A guy who thinks the GOP is too far left for him to be a part? That guy gets me.
-
"Fox’s @BritHume says he’s never seen anything like the current Speaker stalemate before: “200 members of the House want a certain candidate and 20 don’t — but the 20 are calling the tune. That’s an interesting way to do business.” (Video)
https://mobile.twitter.com/TVNewsNow/status/1610805440207818752
-
The other 202 Republicans HAVE chosen who they want for Speaker. Why should 19 morons get to override that?
So wait... They're OBLIGED to vote with the majority?
Then why vote at all?
This precise sort of thinking is why I am no longer a Republican.
-
Sorry @Maj. Bill Martin but you are just flat out wrong on this point. Abolishing the income tax and replacing it with a National Retail Sales Tax would not require a constitutional amendment as nowhere does the constitution require an income tax.
If you don't get rid of this:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
No way I can approve of an alternate.
Failure to eliminate the 16th Amendment would only guarantee another tax, in addition to the income tax, not the elimination of the income tax.
More to the point, however, a tax on consumption, disregarding essential food, energy, and medical care, seems more the way to go. With those exceptions, it would be less regressive than just a sales tax, and those who spent the most would pay the most taxes.
-
This precise sort of thinking is why I am no longer a Republican.
This sort of thinking is why I am not a Democrat. I cannot understand for the life of me why there are people here who are so adamantly supporting the GOP Establishment.
-
If you don't get rid of this:
No way I can approve of an alternate.
Failure to eliminate the 16th Amendment would only guarantee another tax, in addition to the income tax, not the elimination of the income tax.
More to the point, however, a tax on consumption, disregarding essential food, energy, and medical care, seems more the way to go. With those exceptions, it would be less regressive than just a sales tax, and those who spent the most would pay the most taxes.
The bill itself addresses both issues @Smokin Joe my question to you is would you rather determine what YOUR essentials are yourself or have some goobernment puke do it for you?
-
Sorry @Maj. Bill Martin but you are just flat out wrong on this point. Abolishing the income tax and replacing it with a National Retail Sales Tax would not require a constitutional amendment as nowhere does the constitution require an income tax.
You're right -- I shouldn't have said it that broadly. I'd just read something about the feds requiring the states to do the administrative end of a proposed national sales tax because the infrastructure already exists, and that would require an Amendment to compel the states to assist. But a basic sales tax wouldn't.
-
The bill itself addresses both issues @Smokin Joe my question to you is would you rather determine what YOUR essentials are yourself or have some goobernment puke do it for you?
I'm not saying determine essentials at any level in government, although States do that with sales tax exemptions now, deciding that the calories in a bag of sugar are not taxable, but the ones in some junk food are.
You want your house to be at 60 degrees all summer and live in the Florida keys? Go for it, no tax on it--it's your house. Want to eat caviar at every meal...why not? no tax. Bigger boobs? no tax. Gasoline (motor fuels, including charging vehicles), can be taxed separately with excise taxes as is done with gas and diesel now.
Here's the rub, and its simple, sooner or later, that money will be spent, on some thing taxable. Big house? ya gotta furnish it, and that's taxable.
Where the government determines essentials is in determining pre/rebates of presumed taxes on essentials. Just don't tax it in the first place, and you won't need those folks to hand out the checks (and eliminate a huge window for fraud).
Obviously, I would rather set my thermostat and not have the government tax that energy I use. I live in a place where winter kills in a matter of hours, most of the folks in Government do not.
-
This sort of thinking is why I am not a Democrat. I cannot understand for the life of me why there are people here who are so adamantly supporting the GOP Establishment.
It seems 'Drain the Swamp' was just a convenient meme. :whistle:
-
This sort of thinking is why I am not a Democrat. I cannot understand for the life of me why there are people here who are so adamantly supporting the GOP Establishment.
I think its pretty straightforward for most of us. I personally view the election of the Speaker kind of like a regular election. There is a primary -- the conference vote -- where the identity of the GOP candidate is voted upon. And then we support that candidate in the general election because we believe he/she is better than the Democrat alternative.
Trump won 45% of the 2016 primary vote, which meant that a majority of GOP primary voters preferred someone else to him. Despite that, the vast majority of Republicans rallied around him in the general election because of the general consensus that Republican are preferred to Democrats. Even though for Presidential elections, a candidate who lost in the primary likely could still run in the general election as an independent. He wasn't my preferred Republican, but I voted for him in the general anyway.
So, I think a lot of people say "there was a vote overwhelmingly in favor of McCarthy, he won, so that should be it." If small factions within the caucus start making independent demands that their views be given special consideration, that opens it up to every other little faction within the caucus to start making their own demands, and that just isn't workable.
It's Sore/Loserman all over again.
-
I think its pretty straightforward for most of us. I personally view the election of the Speaker kind of like a regular election. There is a primary -- the conference vote -- where the identity of the GOP candidate is voted upon. And then we support that candidate in the general election because we believe he/she is better than the Democrat alternative.
If those general election rules were in place, then we would already be swearing in Speaker Jefferies. But then this isn't that type situation at all, thank G-d. The Nov conference vote wasn't a primary. And the highest vote getter doesn't win any of the general election votes so far.
-
But then this isn't that type situation at all, thank G-d. The Nov conference vote wasn't a primary. And the highest vote getter doesn't win any of the general election votes so far.
Try thinking of it this way:
Congress is the business of government. The November conference was the Board of Directors meeting to choose the man or woman to be the Republican Corporation's CEO candidate to be voted on by the general shareholders. The Board's vote is legally binding.
If you're unhappy with the outcome, find a way to work with it or resign and find another Board.
-
Try thinking of it this way:
Congress is the business of government. The November conference was the Board of Directors meeting to choose the man or woman to be the Republican Corporation's CEO candidate to be voted on by the general shareholders. The Board's vote is legally binding.
If you're unhappy with the outcome, find a way to work with it or resign and find another Board.
But the conference is not legally binding... And obviously whatever happened there got shoved down their throats, or something since then pissed em off.
As to resigning - HELL NO! They have a responsibility to the folks that elected them, and to Conservatives - which they are doing.
So IT IS more of a primary. They have more responsibility to their own consciences than they do the party - That is always the case - And beyond that, their will bent toward those who elected them - To serve those folks within the parameters their respective consciences will allow... Those things come BEFORE any allegiance toward party, AND OUGHT TO.
-
If you don't get rid of this:
No way I can approve of an alternate.
Failure to eliminate the 16th Amendment would only guarantee another tax, in addition to the income tax, not the elimination of the income tax.
More to the point, however, a tax on consumption, disregarding essential food, energy, and medical care, seems more the way to go. With those exceptions, it would be less regressive than just a sales tax, and those who spent the most would pay the most taxes.
If one simply eliminates the 16th Amendment, the only thing one does is to prohibit income taxation of capital gains and rents. Income tax on wages would continue as before. Why? Read the 1895 Income Tax Cases carefully.
-
It speaks volumes about the state of the Nation when this becomes the top topic to be discussed.
888mouth
-
It speaks volumes about the state of the Nation when this becomes the top topic to be discussed.
888mouth
The mainstream media ... Public Enemy #1.
-
The evisceration? Lies make Jesus cry. The ONLY thing that got changed was the penalty for not having health insurance. Meanwhile, the taxpayer continues to be on the hook for 'Free health insurance' for a continually growing percentage of the population.
You're confusing bills. The one you're talking about is the one that ended up passing.
The one that Ryan pushed through the House but that was killed by McCain in the Senate - which is the one I specifically mentioned in my post - would have eliminated ObamaCare's federal subsidization of health insurance, among a bunch of other things. Instead, it would have tossed that burden onto the individual states. And of course, because the states could not have afforded it and can't deficit spend, it would have died.
That's the more politically possible route as opposed to a balanced budget amendment that is never going to pass. Punt as many federal programs to the states as possible, because the states already are bound by what amount to balanced budget requirements.
-
This is who folks are betting the farm on. In this rambling, incoherent diatribe Boebert not only proves there is no plan, but admits McCarthy's replacement doesn't have to be a conservative. . (Video)
https://youtu.be/_hF5aw5K9-Q
-
This is who folks are betting the farm on. In this rambling, incoherent diatribe Boebert not only proves there is no plan, but admits McCarthy's replacement doesn't have to be a conservative. . (Video)
Sheesh... no one ever claimed Boebert was a brightest bulb in the closet. Funny how easy Trump supportes turn on their own, at the first scent of dissention.
You know the aspects of ambush interviews RIV, but whats more sad than this video, is seeing the likes of Hannity, Levin, and even Trump selling out their conservative cred to a guy who promises to play nice with dims at every opportunity.
-
Everyone here absolutely hates Mitch McConnell, yet a good portion of folks are cheering on Kevin McCarthy as Speaker. I find that odd, since they're basically the same kind of animal.
(https://i.postimg.cc/4yXJ5RVm/KMHA.png) (https://i.postimg.cc/mDfZPHr3/KMLS.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/qqQpDDxQ/MMHA.png) (https://i.postimg.cc/85RpMzF2/MMLS.png)
-
Everyone here absolutely hates Mitch McConnell, yet a good portion of folks are cheering on Kevin McCarthy as Speaker. I find that odd, since they're basically the same kind of animal.
(https://i.postimg.cc/4yXJ5RVm/KMHA.png) (https://i.postimg.cc/mDfZPHr3/KMLS.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/qqQpDDxQ/MMHA.png) (https://i.postimg.cc/85RpMzF2/MMLS.png)
Trump gave his minions here and elsewhere marching orders to support McCarthy.
Not too surprised.
-
Trump gave his minions here and elsewhere marching orders to support McCarthy.
Not too surprised.
I don't like McCarthy, and wish he wasn't going to be Speaker. But he won the conference vote overwhelmingly. If we want a more conservative Speaker, we have to elect a lot more conservative representatives than we historically have.
-
You're right -- I shouldn't have said it that broadly. I'd just read something about the feds requiring the states to do the administrative end of a proposed national sales tax because the infrastructure already exists, and that would require an Amendment to compel the states to assist. But a basic sales tax wouldn't.
@Maj. Bill Martin The bill (HR25 in the last Congress) does not compel states (45 of which are already doing it) to do anything but would compensate them for their trouble should they decide to add a few lines of code to their software.
-
I don't like McCarthy, and wish he wasn't going to be Speaker. But he won the conference vote overwhelmingly. If we want a more conservative Speaker, we have to elect a lot more conservative representatives than we historically have.
I have no trouble with McCarthy if he leads as a conservative. That is why this rebellion happened in the first place. No secret he'd rather negotiate with the dims than his own conservatve branch of his own party.
If we can keep him on a short leash, I think he sinks himself within a year anyway. No way this RINO rehabilitates. As far as I am concerned Jordon's the future of GOP congress anyway
-
If one simply eliminates the 16th Amendment, the only thing one does is to prohibit income taxation of capital gains and rents. Income tax on wages would continue as before. Why? Read the 1895 Income Tax Cases carefully.
Exactly correct. And nowhere does the 16th compel an income tax nor does anything elsewhere in the constitution.
-
Try thinking of it this way:
Congress is the business of government. The November conference was the Board of Directors meeting to choose the man or woman to be the Republican Corporation's CEO candidate to be voted on by the general shareholders. The Board's vote is legally binding.
If you're unhappy with the outcome, find a way to work with it or resign and find another Board.
I could try thinking of it that way. But it wouldn't be an accurate representation of the situation.
Here's the deal. The rules dictate that the next Speaker receive a majority of the votes of all members present. Since a majority of the members are Republicans, it is very highly likely that the person who ends up receiving a majority is a Republican.
Now, let's look at what Republican ends up receiving that majority. As it stand now, that person will need all but four of the Republican votes. But currently, there are 21 Republicans who are holding up that process. And the reason they are doing so is because they are sick and tired of the GOP Establishment running roughshod over the voters.
Everything we have complained about for the last 16 years, these 21 Reps advocate. Every time we've been screwed over by Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, John Boehner, Reince Priebus, Ronna McDaniel, etc., they have heard our cries and are willing to fight to do away with those Swamp rats. Unlike Trump, these 21 reps actually are trying to drain the Swamp. They stand in the gap. They advocate for everything we have complained about for over a decade. And they are our only hope.
I will not surrender to the Swamp. I stand with anyone willing to fight to send the old guard to pasture and replace them with people willing to stand up for the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the Republic it once upheld.
-
The mainstream media ... Public Enemy #1.
The mainstream media is all in for McCarthy.
-
I have no trouble with McCarthy if he leads as a conservative. That is why this rebellion happened in the first place. No secret he'd rather negotiate with the dims than his own conservatve branch of his own party.
If we can keep him on a short leash, I think he sinks himself within a year anyway. No way this RINO rehabilitates. As far as I am concerned Jordon's the future of GOP congress anyway
Thanks to the idiocy of 19 morons these past few days, the GOP has no future in the Congress. This dimwitted tantrum has ruined the 2024 electoral cycle…and likely the next decades worth of cycles… for Conservatives and we won’t be seeing any majorities for MANY cycles.
The competency of EVERY single GOP congressman and/or candidate is now shredded…and while voters can be forgiving of many shortcomings, this perception of incompetence is a death sentence for the Conservative movement. Great work.
-
Thanks to the idiocy of 19 morons these past few days, the GOP has no future in the Congress. This dimwitted tantrum has ruined the 2024 electoral cycle…and likely the next decades worth of cycles… for Conservatives and we won’t be seeing any majorities for MANY cycles.
The competency of EVERY single GOP congressman and/or candidate is now shredded…and while voters can be forgiving of many shortcomings, this perception of incompetence is a death sentence for the Conservative movement. Great work.
Not sure it is that bad yet. I'm sure it will be used by Dems in 2024, and may swing some close elections. But a lot also may happen between now and 2024 that would overshadow this.
-
Thanks to the idiocy of 19 morons these past few days, the GOP has no future in the Congress. This dimwitted tantrum has ruined the 2024 electoral cycle…and likely the next decades worth of cycles… for Conservatives and we won’t be seeing any majorities for MANY cycles.
The competency of EVERY single GOP congressman and/or candidate is now shredded…and while voters can be forgiving of many shortcomings, this perception of incompetence is a death sentence for the Conservative movement. Great work.
Go find a fire extinguisher, your heads on fire...
***hair on fire
-
Not sure it is that bad yet. I'm sure it will be used by Dems in 2024, and may swing some close elections. But a lot also may happen between now and 2024 that would overshadow this.
Not to mention that a large majority of voters are not that 'down in the weeds' with the inner workings of the House. I think it would be a bigger issue if a new Speaker is installed -- whoever that may end up being -- and continues to push through huge omnibus spending bills, green nonsense that drives up the cost of everything, etc.
-
Go find a fire extinguisher, your heads on fire...
***hair on fire
YUP. I'll betcha them Conservatives have no problem getting reelected... I know I will be for Rosendale.
-
YUP. I'll betcha them Conservatives have no problem getting reelected... I know I will be for Rosendale.
Now I’m not just jealous of the incredible vistas your state affords, I also want your representative.
He was awesome!
-
Thanks to the idiocy of 19 morons these past few days, the GOP has no future in the Congress. This dimwitted tantrum has ruined the 2024 electoral cycle…and likely the next decades worth of cycles… for Conservatives and we won’t be seeing any majorities for MANY cycles.
The competency of EVERY single GOP congressman and/or candidate is now shredded…and while voters can be forgiving of many shortcomings, this perception of incompetence is a death sentence for the Conservative movement. Great work.
Pearl clutching and couch fainting...
-
Pearl clutching and couch fainting...
The entertainment value provided by this thread vis-a-vis the GOP house is Top Notch.
In fact you can smell McCarthy's stench all the way to California from DC
-
The entertainment value provided by this thread vis-a-vis the GOP house is Top Notch.
In fact you can smell McCarthy's stench all the way to California from DC
Each subsequent ballot just adds punch lines to his resume'
I really fell sorry for the embarassment he is having to endure.
-
Go find a fire extinguisher, your heads on fire...
***hair on fire
Ya. And it’s because I can see the damage this doing to the conservative cause. It’s long term damage and it’s severe.
-
YUP. I'll betcha them Conservatives have no problem getting reelected... I know I will be for Rosendale.
I just have this on in the background. But if Rosendale was the guy that said there was no one there for votes except the two chosen reps...I am impressed with him for calling this out. When watching voting, I have noticed the lack of reps in an empty chamber.
As far as I'm concerned, when conducting votes, everybody should be AIS (a$$ in seats).
-
Now I’m not just jealous of the incredible vistas your state affords, I also want your representative.
He was awesome!
Damn right. I want to have his baby.
-
Ya. And it’s because I can see the damage this doing to the conservative cause. It’s long term damage and it’s severe.
Oh the drama.
We've had Senate filibusters that have went on for weeks and the country went on it's merry way. Most conservatives if they are paying attention are cheering.
-
Oh the drama.
We've had Senate filibusters that have went on for weeks and the country went on it's merry way. Most conservatives if they are paying attention are cheering.
Great. So who’s their candidate for the Speakership?
-
I just have this on in the background. But if Rosendale was the guy that said there was no one there for votes except the two chosen reps...I am impressed with him for calling this out. When watching voting, I have noticed the lack of reps in an empty chamber.
As far as I'm concerned, when conducting votes, everybody should be AIS (a$$ in seats).
:amen: 888high58888
-
Now I’m not just jealous of the incredible vistas your state affords, I also want your representative.
He was awesome!
That's right - And I will be backing him to the 9s. :beer: :patriot: :seeya:
-
Damn right. I want to have his baby.
Is that a tomato paste stain is see on your undies? 888mouth
-
Damn right. I want to have his baby.
You’re in luck. I think that’s actually possible these days. :whistle:
-
Pearl clutching and couch fainting...
Nah. See stupidity, and point it out. That’s all I’m doing.
-
Oh the drama.
We've had Senate filibusters that have went on for weeks and the country went on it's merry way. Most conservatives if they are paying attention are cheering.
You have to remember that the Conservative cause and the Republican cause do not necessarily coincide. Unfortunately, the GOPe thinks, by virtue of being to the right of the Lunatic Left, that they are "Conservative", when that argument can only be made in a relative sense. The left edge of the road is to the right of the left hand ditch (and the field beyond).
-
Oh the drama.
We've had Senate filibusters that have went on for weeks and the country went on it's merry way.
I don't recall Democrats worrying about the clock when they were working overtime to block passage of the Civil Rights Act.
Most conservatives if they are paying attention are cheering.
Yep. 100% correct. The only people upset are the ones worried about how Democrats will say mean things about them if they don't hurry up and get the Paul Ryan disciple into the Speaker's chair so that the Democrats can start passing spending bills again.
-
I hope the FC realizes that the rules they're pushing to weaken the power of the Speaker and strengthen the individual members are going to apply to that very large Democratic minority as well. And they're going to be interested in making a Republican-run Congress look as dysfunctional as possible.
That, coupled with the requirement to have 12 separate appropriations bills, is going to make for some serious chaos later this year.
-
That, coupled with the requirement to have 12 separate appropriations bills, is going to make for some serious chaos later this year.
Chaos is not a bad thing.
-
That, coupled with the requirement to have 12 separate appropriations bills, is going to make for some serious chaos later this year.
The requirement for separate appropriations bills is non-negotiable.
-
Chaos is not a bad thing.
In this context, its a very bad thing. Looking like we can't be functional...not the way to win elections.
-
In this context, its a very bad thing. Looking like we can't be functional...not the way to win elections.
In other words, style over substance.
-
Chaos is not a bad thing.
Well, the country is likely to be in the midst of a recession, and the Democrats and media will be looking for an easy target to blame. A GOP-led House that can't pass appropriations bills, and is threatening to send the government into default, will be the perfect villain.
-
Well, the country is likely to be in the midst of a recession, and the Democrats and media will be looking for an easy target to blame. A GOP-led House that can't pass appropriations bills, and is threatening to send the government into default, will be the perfect villain.
You say that like it is a bad thing.
-
In this context, its a very bad thing. Looking like we can't be functional...not the way to win elections.
The way we have won other elections hasn't worked well for us. So WTF. Burn the party down.
-
. . . the Democrats and media will be looking for an easy target to blame. . .
By all means, we should avoid doing anything that will piss off the Democrats or the media. Let's put a collaborator in the Speaker's chair right away to make nice with them.
-
You say that like it is a bad thing.
Uh, yes. I do think giving the Democrats an easy way to blame Republicans for economic problems is a bad thing.
-
By all means, we should avoid doing anything that will piss off the Democrats or the media. Let's put a collaborator in the Speaker's chair right away to make nice with them.
Having a non-existent majority is a really bad time for this combination of rule changes.
Want to know the worst part?
-
Uh, yes. I do think giving the Democrats an easy way to blame Republicans for economic problems is a bad thing.
What would change? Not a damn thing... They have done that forever.
-
Uh, yes. I do think giving the Democrats an easy way to blame Republicans for economic problems is a bad thing.
They already have an easy way. They lie. Been doing it for decades. So to hell with playing nice.
And the reason we have economic problems is because Government has too much power. If the government brings spending below 18% of GDP, then we won't have any economic problems. And there is no way that will ever happen with Kevin McCarthy in the Speaker's chair.
Or we can elect him Speaker and then listen to Democrats blame Republicans for economic problems, which we will still have. Your choice.
-
Having a non-existent majority is a really bad time for this combination of rule changes.
Non-existent? Do tell.
-
What would change? Not a damn thing... They have done that forever.
Except it has a much harder time sticking if there isn't an actual clusterfuck playing on the news every night for a month while the government goes unfunded.
-
Except it has a much harder time sticking if there isn't an actual clusterfuck playing on the news every night for a month while the government goes unfunded.
Well, not seeing a problem there, If we unfund the gov we might actually be better off.
-
Non-existent? Do tell.
It'll be pretty much the three groups we see right now. 200 or so in the mass of the GOP, including at least 10-15 who aren't conservative at all, 20-25 FC's who won't compromise on anything, and then 213 Democrats. No majority. And, a powerless Speaker unable to crack heads.
I mean, I'm pretty sure that's part of the discussion McCarthy and his allies are having right now. Even if he gets the Speakership, how is the House going to work under these rules, and if this FC faction holds them hostage on every issue?
I mean, there's the obvious and inevitable answer to that, but I don't think many of us will like it.
-
It'll be pretty much the three groups we see right now. 200 or so in the mass of the GOP, including at least 10-15 who aren't conservative at all, 20-25 FC's who won't compromise on anything, and then 213 Democrats. No majority. And, a powerless Speaker unable to crack heads.
I mean, I'm pretty sure that's part of the discussion McCarthy and his allies are having right now. Even if he gets the Speakership, how is the House going to work under these rules, and if this FC faction holds them hostage on every issue?
I mean, there's the obvious and inevitable answer to that, but I don't think many of us will like it.
Well. it could be worse. And I hope it will be. The end of the GOPe would be nice,
-
Well, not seeing a problem there, If we unfund the gov we might actually be better off.
Might? It is a 100% certainty. Without exception, every single problem our nation faces today is government created.
-
Well. it could be worse. And I hope it will be. The end of the GOPe would be nice,
And there it is. Exactly where I thought you were coming from.
-
And there it is. My point exactly.
So we have an agreement. May the GOP as we know it die.
-
Well, not seeing a problem there, If we unfund the gov we might actually be better off.
Except we all know that outside of some dreamy fantasies, that's not going to happen . Right?
What will inevitably happen instead when it gets to that point - and this is what always happens -- is that the 5-10 most liberal members of the GOP won't be willing to shut down the government for the sake of funding a border wall, or for the sake of not funding something else, so they'll look to cut a deal with someone.
If the FC sticks to its guns and refuses to compromise on the conservative end, those RINO's will end up compromising with Democrats, which will end up being a far more expensive deal.
And the Dems absolutely see that coming right now.
-
So we have an agreement. May the GOP as we know it die.
Oh, the only agreement we have is we agree that you want things to get worse.
We don't agree that the GOP will die. All that will happen is that it'll be forced to make even more compromises with Democrats because the hardcore conservatives will have rendered themselves irrelevant.
-
Oh, the only agreement we have is we agree that you want things to get worse.
We don't agree that the GOP will die. All that will happen is that it'll be forced to make even more compromises with Democrats because the hardcore conservatives will have rendered themselves irrelevant.
Well then Screw you. I want to burn the house down. The place is a hive a villainy. Piss on you for supporting a failed body.
-
Except we all know that outside of some dreamy fantasies, that's not going to happen . Right?
Not if Kevin McCarthy becomes Speaker.
-
Not if Kevin McCarthy becomes Speaker.
Oh. So you think that if someone other than McCarthy becomes Speaker, that the 5-6 most liberal Republicans in the House would then be willing to permanently defund the government in the name of hardcore conservatism?
That seems unlikely to me.
-
Well then Screw you. I want to burn the house down. The place is a hive a villainy. Piss on you for supporting a failed body.
And you have a very Blessed Day too!
-
Oh. So you think that if someone other than McCarthy becomes Speaker, that the 5-6 most liberal Republicans in the House would then be willing to permanently defund the government in the name of hardcore conservatism?
That seems unlikely to me.
There was nothing in my post that came close to even hinting that.
-
There was nothing in my post that came close to even hinting that.
I honestly thought that was your point. Look back through the thread. Wingnut said this:
Well, not seeing a problem there, If we unfund the gov we might actually be better off.
I responded with:
Except we all know that outside of some dreamy fantasies, that's not going to happen . Right?
And then you said:
Not if Kevin McCarthy becomes Speaker.
So I honestly believed your point was that if we elect somebody other than Kevin McCarthy is Speaker, we can shut the government down long-term. If that wasn't your point, I apologize.
I'm just saying that we've gone through this exact same scenario at least a dozen times in the last few decades, with conservatives demanding we hold firm on defunding, and the most liberal members of the GOP being unwilling to do that and cutting a deal with the Dems.
The problem in particular in this Congress is that we won't come out of this with any real unity in the GOP, and a very small margin over the Dems in the House as a whole. The entire Democratic strategy for the next two years is going to be 1) obstruct as much as possible, 2) fracture the GOP, and 3) peel off the 5-7 most liberal members on big issues.
And if the conservatives aren't willing to compromise to keep those 5-7 with us, that strategy will work every time.
-
I honestly thought that was your point. Look back through the thread. Wingnut said this:
I responded with:
And then you said:
So I honestly believed your point was that if we elect somebody other than Kevin McCarthy is Speaker, we can shut the government down long-term. If that wasn't your point, I apologize.
I'm just saying that we've gone through this exact same scenario at least a dozen times in the last few decades, with conservatives demanding we hold firm on defunding, and the most liberal members of the GOP being unwilling to do that and cutting a deal with the Dems.
The problem in particular in this Congress is that we won't come out of this with any real unity in the GOP, and a very small margin over the Dems in the House as a whole. The entire Democratic strategy for the next two years is going to be 1) obstruct as much as possible, 2) fracture the GOP, and 3) peel off the 5-7 most liberal members on big issues.
And if the conservatives aren't willing to compromise to keep those 5-7 with us, that strategy will work every time.
That clearly WAS his point....good job holding Hoodat accountable for his own words. Some of these guys are living in a fantasy world where they think..."if only Andy Biggs was Speaker" we could force through every Conservative policy we want". It don't work that way...we can only legislate as far as the FIVE most liberal GOP congressman let us. That's how thin majorities work, which should be obvious as we're watching a handful of morons hold the entire party hostage so they can get some publicity for themselves.
-
Some of these guys are living in a fantasy world where they think..."if only Andy Biggs was Speaker" we could force through every Conservative policy we want". It don't work that way...we can only legislate as far as the FIVE most liberal GOP congressman let us.
Bingo. It's an unpleasant reality, but reality nonetheless. The 20 are destroying any sense of GOP unity and alienating the exact people we're going to need to hold when it comes down to actual legislation. It's a classic "win the battle but lose the war" scenario that has developed.
-
Bingo. It's an unpleasant reality, but reality nonetheless. The 20 are destroying any sense of GOP unity and alienating the exact people we're going to need to hold when it comes down to actual legislation. It's a classic "win the battle but lose the war" scenario that has developed.
So convenient to ignore that little fact and pretend "if only the Speaker would just put forward more conservative legislation we could achieve conservative utopia". No, we can't. That requires BIG majorities...which we ain't got. These folks are either ignorant to how a Republic is designed, or simply burying their heads in the sand.
So let me help them here with one plain sentence: YOU CAN ONLY PASS LEGISLATION IF YOU HAVE 218 VOTES (60 IN THE SENATE UNLESS ITS A RECONCILIATION BILL).
How do these supposedly educated folks not know this...the ignorance or deliberate denial necessary to ignore this fact is almost immeasurable.
-
"if only the Speaker would just put forward more conservative legislation we could achieve conservative utopia"
You are so full of crap. No one expects a "conservative utopia". They're just trying to stop the freefall the country is in. A freefall due to the very people you demand we support.
-
That clearly WAS his point....good job holding Hoodat accountable for his own words.
Again, show me where I said, "if someone other than McCarthy becomes Speaker, that the 5-6 most liberal Republicans in the House would then be willing to permanently defund the government".
-
You are so full of crap. No one expects a "conservative utopia". They're just trying to stop the freefall the country is in. A freefall due to the very people you demand we support.
That's right.
-
You are so full of crap. No one expects a "conservative utopia". They're just trying to stop the freefall the country is in. A freefall due to the very people you demand we support.
Nothing they are doing does ANYTHING to stop the “freefall”…rather…by tarnishing all Republicans as incompetent and disorganized idiots, they are ensuring that the “freefall” accelerates. This made SOME sense if it was about putting some limitations on the Speaker to limit his ability to cut a deal on budget issues or on spending generally…but it’s not that any more. Now it’s simply a personal vendetta mixed with some self aggrandizement. Pointless and destructive for our 2024 hopes.
-
That's right.
10-4
And I plan to call out every one of them out every time McCarthy screws us.
-
10-4
And I plan to call out every one of them out every time McCarthy screws us.
McCarthy isn't going to be the problem. The problem is going to be Jeffries and his 212 votes repeatedly trying to peel away 5-7 RINO's to essentially take over the chamber. McCarthy isn't going to have the power to stop that because the FC just stripped it away.
-
Again, show me where I said, "if someone other than McCarthy becomes Speaker, that the 5-6 most liberal Republicans in the House would then be willing to permanently defund the government".
Re-read the Major's summary of your postings...its all right there.
-
Again, show me where I said, "if someone other than McCarthy becomes Speaker, that the 5-6 most liberal Republicans in the House would then be willing to permanently defund the government".
No, you didn't have to use those words because it was implicit in your point. You very clearly implied that we could shut the government down if someone besides McCarthy was Speaker. That would necessarily require that the 5-6 most liberal Republicans in the House would be willing to defund the government as well to stick with the legislative priorities of the FC.
And that isn't going to happen.
Now, as I said in a prior post, if you weren't talking about keeping the government shut down, then this wouldn't apply, and I apologized. But in that case, I would then have no idea what point you were trying to make in the first place.
McCarthy isn't going to be your problem. Your problem is going to be that the most liberal members of the GOP caucus will not go to the mat for FC priorities.
-
McCarthy isn't going to be your problem.
Oh the hell he ain't...
Your problem is going to be that the most liberal members of the GOP caucus will not go to the mat for FC priorities.
LOL! McCarthy won't go to the mat either.
And no, the liberal wing - while it has always been the money, is relatively unpopulated. It is the globalist moderate wing that is the problem, and has been all along - A group to which McCarthy is enjoined.
-
Oh the hell he ain't...
LOL! McCarthy won't go to the mat either.
And no, the liberal wing - while it has always been the money, is relatively unpopulated. It is the globalist moderate wing that is the problem, and has been all along - A group to which McCarthy is enjoined.
You've already said that you want things to get worse, and that you want to see the GOP destroyed. So I figure that pretty much the opposite of whatever you say is probably the wisest course.
-
You've already said that you want things to get worse, and that you want to see the GOP destroyed. So I figure that pretty much the opposite of whatever you say is probably the wisest course.
If the GOP chooses to be Democrat-lite (which is what McCarthy advocates), then hell yes, it needs to be destroyed. But if the GOP chooses to be a Conservative party (which McCarthy opposes), then by all means save it.
-
You've already said that you want things to get worse, and that you want to see the GOP destroyed. So I figure that pretty much the opposite of whatever you say is probably the wisest course.
ZERO advancement on any front in real terms - *NO WINS* in my whole political life.
At some point, you become aware they ain't even trying.
And they ain't.
In fact, they are more aligned with the other side.
I ain't of a mind to destroy the GOP - if it were to have any value (which it don't, and historically hasn't). But neither will I preserve it just so it can continue to betray, and continue to supply NO opposition to liberalism.
What I am interested in is adherence to Conservatism, and opposition to liberalism - Neither of which can be found in the GOP.
-
This is a serious post.
I kinda like things as they are right now.
The House paralyzed. No action being taken.
The Senate can accomplish nothing without the House. Good, let them sit idle.
No laws being passed.
The fewer, the better.
I repeat:
I like things as they are RIGHT NOW.
-
Four days in, and Congress hasn't appropriated a dime in new spending.
-
This is a serious post.
I kinda like things as they are right now.
The House paralyzed. No action being taken.
The Senate can accomplish nothing without the House. Good, let them sit idle.
No laws being passed.
The fewer, the better.
I repeat:
I like things as they are RIGHT NOW.
:thumbsup:
-
This is a serious post.
I kinda like things as they are right now.
The House paralyzed. No action being taken.
The Senate can accomplish nothing without the House. Good, let them sit idle.
No laws being passed.
The fewer, the better.
I repeat:
I like things as they are RIGHT NOW.
But you know it's not going to stay that way, right?
I think people are forgetting that the appropriations bills for this year have already been passed. What this Congress is supposed to work on this year are the appropriations for next fiscal year, which starts on October 1. So this delay in getting started doesn't stop any money from being spent right now. They're still spending away.
What do you think is going to happen politically if it comes to October 1, and the Republican Congress hasn't yet passed any of the 12 appropriations bills for that fiscal year?
-
What do you think is going to happen politically if it comes to October 1, and the Republican Congress hasn't yet passed any of the 12 appropriations bills for that fiscal year?
Then America will know that McCarthy's promises were complete bullshit. The Republican brand will be further tarnished. And the Democrats will revel in how much pork they are able to push into the next omnibus bill.
-
Then America will know that McCarthy's promises were complete bullshit. The Republican brand will be further tarnished. And the Democrats will revel in how much pork they are able to push into the next omnibus bill.
Hey, we finally agree!
-
Hey, we finally agree!
If we agree, then it comes down to a matter of probability. What is the likelihood that McCarthy will do this?
Without the guarantees that Conservatives have been pushing for here, I put the likelihood of McCarthy not getting separate appropriations bills passed before the deadline at 100%. Which is why I believe it is important to push for those guarantees.
-
If we agree, then it comes down to a matter of probability. What is the likelihood that McCarthy will do this?
I don't think McCarthy wants that to happen at all. I think he'd be thrilled to pass all 12 appropriations bills on time. Huge feather in his cap if that happens. I was just addressing the earlier post saying that having the House do "nothing" is so great.
The only ones who will benefit from the GOP-led House failing to do its job will be the Democrats, because they'll swoop in and make a few deals with a dozen or so of the most liberal Republicans.
Without the guarantees that Conservatives have been pushing for here, I put the likelihood of McCarthy not getting separate appropriations bills passed before the deadline at 100%. Which is why I believe it is important to push for those guarantees.
I don't think there's a chance in hell McCarthy can get all those bills passed by October 1 no matter how hard he tries. Just for starters, that has only been done 4 times in the last forty years, and not once in the last quarter of a century.