McCarthy

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

The 'Gang of Eight' bill is an immigration version of Obamacare

Fundamental reform is badly needed and long overdue. That is why I support immigration reform and why I initially joined a bipartisan group of senators to try and find common ground on the issue. But it's also why I left that group. And why today, I must oppose the so-called "Gang" of Eight"...

www.lee.senate.gov

I want a real deal, not something we can brag is a deal that doesn't actually advance my immigration position while giving my negotiating partner everything he wants up front with an opportunity to ignore the provisions I want enacted whenever he is in charge of the executive branch.

That isn't a bipartisan deal, it is the football being set up so Lucy can yank it away because the plan was to get amnesty now with a promise never to be met later on enforcement, just like Reagan got swindled in the 80's. The other side gets 80% of what they want immediately and we get the promise of what we want as long as we hold power at some point down the road. Gee, wonder why that failed.

At some point, you will need to come to grips with the fact that you are one of the far right. One of the furthest, really, and that colors how you view these things. When you dismiss bipartisan legislation as a full on giveaway to the Dems, you're not speaking the language of objective analysis. You're speaking the language of the extreme idealogue.

 

[anon_mya1phvcpf5x4]

From where I sit, respectively disagree. The GOP doesn't even get to pass boring old legislation that is supported by conservatives because we always are playing an away game. The "radical" wing is standing in the way of passing what exactly? The things you see them blocking are things that give the Democrats most of what they want while getting a pittance in return. "They won't vote to raise the debt ceiling." Well if they had their way, we would be reducing what we extend, not expanding. And if the GOP wants to be the lower taxes and increase spending party officially, they need to explain why that is good.

I don't know how else to explain it other than complete frustration with being promised this and that and then told "Well we can't really do that..." because basically it is hard, but on the other hand the other party is slowly getting everything they want culturally, economically, socially and the only thing we do is try and slow them down. Dumbass eye patch calling people the enemy because they want their elected officials to ****ING do something, anything to represent their interests. Steny Hoyer wasn't going on CNN and calling AOC the enemy when they were having their differences. They didn't get all of what the progressives wanted, but they got some. We don't legislatively get jack shit from the GOP. They have taxes so low that most of their voters barely pay any anyway. If you have children you are probably paying nothing or next to it unless you represent the well off like this board.

At a certain point you have to earn my vote. If the way you run things is basically what the other guy wants, just slower, then what's the point?

Come on...it's not that bad. You got to stack the court with conservatives, which has led to a lot of wins for your party...such as taking away women's reproductive rights and possibly stopping student loan debt relief and stopping the cancelling of the remain in mexico policy.

 

[IUCrazy2]

There are over 200 Representatives that want McCarthy. 19 that don't.

When the 19 can hold up the process, that's not lining up.

I don't want the 20 completely running things either but I have no problem with them throwing a fit now while they have some leverage.

You have more faith in McCarthy than I do. He has been a member of Republican leadership for the past 14 years and what does he have to show for it?

 

[IUCrazy2]

At some point, you will need to come to grips with the fact that you are one of the far right. One of the furthest, really, and that colors how you view these things. When you dismiss bipartisan legislation as a full on giveaway to the Dems, you're not speaking the language of objective analysis. You're speaking the language of the extreme idealogue.

Already copped to that by your definition. Don't ****ing care about the label. There is nothing far right about saying we should turn off the spigot before dealing with the water already in the boat. If that is far right, then far left was saying we had to have amnesty first before you get what you want, again, something we promised in 1986 and failed to deliver. So yes, that "bipartisan" deal made sure that one side had their wishes frontloaded and the other side had a promise that they would totes get their wishes after that.

If not being a blind idiot makes me far right, so be it. You do make the point for me though, I am far right because the GOP allows your side to pick the field of battle all the time.

 

[DANC]

You’re exactly like your hero. Ignoring anything you don’t like and pretending it doesn’t exist. Duped is mild for the world you live in. Join reality occasionally. It feels good. I doubt there is anyone besides you who believes all those wrestlers are lying. And so you stand up for a slime like Jim Jordan. At some point, I’d think your conscience would begin to bother you.

So you've got nothing. As usual.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I don't know what exactly you're disagreeing with.

The idea that only "boring" legislating mark the left's wins.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Already copped to that by your definition. Don't ****ing care about the label. There is nothing far right about saying we should turn off the spigot before dealing with the water already in the boat. If that is far right, then far left was saying we had to have amnesty first before you get what you want, again, something we promised in 1986 and failed to deliver. So yes, that "bipartisan" deal made sure that one side had their wishes frontloaded and the other side had a promise that they would totes get their wishes after that.

If not being a blind idiot makes me far right, so be it. You do make the point for me though, I am far right because the GOP allows your side to pick the field of battle all the time.

I didn't say it makes you an idiot. Maybe the far right have the correct answers. But it does make you incorrectly identify what is and is not compromise, what is and is not extreme, what is and is not regular parliamentary order.

 

[DANC]

I don't want the 20 completely running things either but I have no problem with them throwing a fit now while they have some leverage.

You have more faith in McCarthy than I do. He has been a member of Republican leadership for the past 14 years and what does he have to show for it?

I would have a lot more respect for the 20 if they weren't angling to have control over committees and who is assigned to them.

At least that's what people who are familiar with the situation claim.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I didn't say it makes you an idiot. Maybe the far right have the correct answers. But it does make you incorrectly identify what is and is not compromise, what is and is not extreme, what is and is not regular parliamentary order.

It wasn't a compromise. I have listed why. Compromise would be both things going into ironclad effect immediately.

You being far left have the same blinders you accuse me of having.

 

[toastedbread]

I don't want the 20 completely running things either but I have no problem with them throwing a fit now while they have some leverage.

You have more faith in McCarthy than I do. He has been a member of Republican leadership for the past 14 years and what does he have to show for it?

The house republicans are less kleptocratic than house dems. The house gop has rules that require the rotation of committee slots. I disagree with most of the positions the 20 take, but I'm glad someone is finally standing up to the uniparty. Pelosi, Schumer, McCarthy get out! From what I've read about McCarthy he is known to be someone with no principles whose positions evolve with the political tea leaves. Ge the corrupt rot out of congress. Death penalty for public corruption. Congressional members should not own any financial investments except US treasury bonds. And raise their salaries to 1 mil per year. Lifetime bans on lobbying post congress.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

It wasn't a compromise. I have listed why. Compromise would be both things going into ironclad effect immediately.

You being far left have the same blinders you accuse me of having.

All due respect, I find it funny anyone could characterize me on this forum as "far left." Hell, @Joe_Hoopsier thinks I'm just months away from becoming a Republican.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I would have a lot more respect for the 20 if they weren't angling to have control over committees and who is assigned to them.

At least that's what people who are familiar with the situation claim.

I just want a shake up at the top. I could care less about the internal infighting. We have had this guy as part of our "coaching" staff for 14 years. I don't see much to celebrate over that timeframe so I want to go a new direction. If it takes a player revolt to get that, so be it. If it results in short term chaos, whatever. Everyone knows we aren't posting many short term wins anyway.

I know some want the investigations to begin but A)even if they do, nothing will come of them and B)it will end up being political failure because we will suddenly see a return of the "misery index" that will be blamed on the GOP for witchhunting instead of working with the good Democrats to solve all our problems. Which will lead to C)McCarthy and the establishment wing capitulation in the 80/20 model I outlined above where our win is cutting 200 billion off a budget increase of a trillion.

Woohoo

 

[IUCrazy2]

All due respect, I find it funny anyone could characterize me on this forum as "far left." Hell, @Joe_Hoopsier thinks I'm just months away from becoming a Republican.

If I am far right, you are far left. (Maybe we should drop the labels?)

 

[anon_mya1phvcpf5x4]

All due respect, I find it funny anyone could characterize me on this forum as "far left." Hell, @Joe_Hoopsier thinks I'm just months away from becoming a Republican.

When someone is far right, even center probably looks far left to them. It's just a matter of perspective.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

If I am far right, you are far left.

If you need that kind of tit-for-tat comparison, it demonstrates your unseriousness, here.

 

[IUCrazy2]

If you need that kind of tit-for-tat comparison, it demonstrates your unseriousness, here.

I added in parenthesis my point. You just responded quicker than my edit.

 

[Bowlmania]

As Trump said, take the win and work with it.

Still hanging on his every word, I see. Hilarious.

What has any politician done to convince me he can be taken at his word, besides Trump?

Please tell me you're joking here.

Like you, I detest much of Trump's behavior.

Why do you Trump lovers always feel the need to throw this in? You don't detest anything about the guy. On the contrary, you admire everything he says and does.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I added in parenthesis my point. You just responded quicker than my edit.

I referred to you as far right because you already had. And based on your posting history, it's an accurate description. And I think it also affects how you view normal legislative activity. You keep claiming the immigration compromise wasn't a compromise. Yes, it was. It just wasn't one that was palatable to you on the far right.

 

[DANC]

If you need that kind of tit-for-tat comparison, it demonstrates your unseriousness, here.

That's the go-to response when you can't counter-argue anymore - "you're not a serious poster". "you don't argue in good faith". blah blah blah

 

[hoosboot]

Already copped to that by your definition. Don't ****ing care about the label. There is nothing far right about saying we should turn off the spigot before dealing with the water already in the boat. If that is far right, then far left was saying we had to have amnesty first before you get what you want, again, something we promised in 1986 and failed to deliver. So yes, that "bipartisan" deal made sure that one side had their wishes frontloaded and the other side had a promise that they would totes get their wishes after that.

If not being a blind idiot makes me far right, so be it. You do make the point for me though, I am far right because the GOP allows your side to pick the field of battle all the time.

I think one of the issues you face with being unhappy with the compromises reached in Congress is who you think you are compromising with. You think you are compromising with Democrats, but in actuality someone in your position is compromising with moderate Republicans, who are compromising with moderate Democrats, who are compromising with far-left Democrats. IMHO, the compromise that can get enough votes is two compromises away from you and that's among the many things that vexe you.

I totally get why you don't want McCarthy as Speaker. He represents an existential problem that you've very clearly identified - that the mainstream GOP of the last 15 years has been increasingly devoid of an agenda outside of "not that". The GOP has to find someone else with a vision who can win almost all of the Republican votes, which is a huge task. And they have to find that someone with the whole world watching them have the difficult (and sometimes embarrassing) argument.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I think one of the issues you face with being unhappy with the compromises reached in Congress is who you think you are compromising with. You think you are compromising with Democrats, but in actuality someone in your position is compromising with moderate Republicans, who are compromising with moderate Democrats, who are compromising with far-left Democrats. IMHO, the compromise that can get enough votes is two compromises away from you and that's among the many things that vexe you.

I totally get why you don't want McCarthy as Speaker. He represents an existential problem that you've very clearly identified - that the mainstream GOP of the last 15 years has been increasingly devoid of an agenda outside of "not that". The GOP has to find someone else with a vision who can win almost all of the Republican votes, which is a huge task. And they have to find that someone with the whole world watching them have the difficult (and sometimes embarrassing) argument.

Very well put.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I referred to you as far right because you already had. And based on your posting history, it's an accurate description. And I think it also affects how you view normal legislative activity.

Fair enough, based on some of your positions posted on the forum, I think you would be far left. There are items you aren't as far left on as there are items I am not as far right on, but if the label is part of the argument then I believe your political beliefs also affects how you view "normal" legislation as well. For what it is worth, I think the labels are useless because of course our political beliefs color our viewpoint.

You keep claiming the immigration compromise wasn't a compromise. Yes, it was. It just wasn't one that was palatable to you on the far right.

I am claiming it was a crappy compromise from my POV. I explained why. I posted an opinion piece from a Senator at the time indicating that the deal was made between the 8, why he thought the "compromise" was poor, and discussed the fact that nobody could debate or make adjustments to the initial agreement. I indicated that deal was indicative of how the GOP has operated for a long, long time and why I had/have an issue with that. That isn't even getting into the idea that Democrats always say they are for border protection and blah, blah, blah so the GOP got the promise of something the Democrats say they are for in the future for amnesty now. What exactly did the Democrats compromise on? We'll finally do what we promised in 1986, swearsies. It was. "compromise" in that Democrats aren't truly for border enforcement and they agreed to pass more laws on top of the ones we already have that they refuse to enforce and in return they got amnesty for several million likely Democrat voters as soon as the bill was signed. Yeah that was a "compromise" but it was a stupid one if your goal is to control the flow of illegal immigration.

I know my biases, I freely admit them. I also understand how legislating works. A deal for the sake of a deal isn't worth a hill of beans unless each side is truly getting something they want out of the deal. I think the unitary got exactly what they wanted out of that G8 bill. Amnesty now and no real enforcement ever. Had to keep that Koch money flowing.

 

[dbmhoosier]

When will this clown drop out?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Fair enough, based on some of your positions posted on the forum, I think you would be far left. There are items you aren't as far left on as there are items I am not as far right on, but if the label is part of the argument then I believe your political beliefs also affects how you view "normal" legislation as well. For what it is worth, I think the labels are useless because of course our political beliefs color our viewpoint.

I am claiming it was a crappy compromise from my POV. I explained why. I posted an opinion piece from a Senator at the time indicating that the deal was made between the 8, why he thought the "compromise" was poor, and discussed the fact that nobody could debate or make adjustments to the initial agreement. I indicated that deal was indicative of how the GOP has operated for a long, long time and why I had/have an issue with that. That isn't even getting into the idea that Democrats always say they are for border protection and blah, blah, blah so the GOP got the promise of something the Democrats say they are for in the future for amnesty now. What exactly did the Democrats compromise on? We'll finally do what we promised in 1986, swearsies. It was. "compromise" in that Democrats aren't truly for border enforcement and they agreed to pass more laws on top of the ones we already have that they refuse to enforce and in return they got amnesty for several million likely Democrat voters as soon as the bill was signed. Yeah that was a "compromise" but it was a stupid one if your goal is to control the flow of illegal immigration.

I know my biases, I freely admit them. I also understand how legislating works. A deal for the sake of a deal isn't worth a hill of beans unless each side is truly getting something they want out of the deal. I think the unitary got exactly what they wanted out of that G8 bill. Amnesty now and no real enforcement ever. Had to keep that Koch money flowing.

Now, hold on. You didn't say it was a crappy compromise. You said it wasn't actually a compromise. If you're now saying it was a compromise, but not one you could live with, then we are on the same page.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I think one of the issues you face with being unhappy with the compromises reached in Congress is who you think you are compromising with. You think you are compromising with Democrats, but in actuality someone in your position is compromising with moderate Republicans, who are compromising with moderate Democrats, who are compromising with far-left Democrats. IMHO, the compromise that can get enough votes is two compromises away from you and that's among the many things that vexe you.

I totally get why you don't want McCarthy as Speaker. He represents an existential problem that you've very clearly identified - that the mainstream GOP of the last 15 years has been increasingly devoid of an agenda outside of "not that". The GOP has to find someone else with a vision who can win almost all of the Republican votes, which is a huge task. And they have to find that someone with the whole world watching them have the difficult (and sometimes embarrassing) argument.

No, I know exactly who I am compromising with right now and that is why I am unhappy with GOP leadership. They don't have an agreement between "us" before they go and talk to "you". So the agreements and compromises they are agreeing to with "you" feel like a capitulation to "us" because they aren't entering the conversation with a position that represents "us" to begin with.

I think the leadership is the problem. I don't think Gaetz and Boebert are the solution but they are offering an opportunity to have a very public and embarrassing discussion about the problem. There are basically 3 legs to the GOP stool and the GOP is ineffective unless leadership is pushing an agenda that addresses the concerns of all 3.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Now, hold on. You didn't say it was a crappy compromise. You said it wasn't actually a compromise. If you're now saying it was a compromise, but not one you could live with, then we are on the same page.

It was a "compromise". When you got to the details I don't feel it was much of a compromise. So yes, technically it was a compromise but I think when you got to the Devil in the details, it looked like the type of deal on this same issue we saw in 1986 which set off red flags.

I think if there were more aggressive means to make sure that the laws that were compromised on to actually be enforced it would have been a more true compromise.

Yes, I know I am threading a needle.

 

[dbmhoosier]

This is what the Dems are doing while the RINOs sit back and say nothing then they act bewildered when MAGA wants to burn the whole swamp to the ground.

 

[larsIU]

The GOP has to find someone else with a vision who can win almost all of the Republican votes, which is a huge task. And they have to find that someone with the whole world watching them have the difficult (and sometimes embarrassing) argument.

DeSantis, though that doesn't help the House Republicans right now.

No, I know exactly who I am compromising with right now and that is why I am unhappy with GOP leadership. They don't have an agreement between "us" before they go and talk to "you". So the agreements and compromises they are agreeing to with "you" feel like a capitulation to "us" because they aren't entering the conversation with a position that represents "us" to begin with.

I think the leadership is the problem.

 

[IUCrazy2]

DeSantis, though that doesn't help the House Republicans right now.

GOP leadership has been banging that chick for a decade. "Oh no, don't cheat on me.....again."

 

[anon_mya1phvcpf5x4]

This is what the Dems are doing while the RINOs sit back and say nothing then they act bewildered when MAGA wants to burn the whole swamp to the ground.

View embedded media

Yup, their goal is to destroy the lives of these poor, innocent tourists.

So when non-Jan 6 people commit crimes....say a black person caught doing something wrong, do you say the cops are ruining his life when he gets caught?

Just wondering.

 

[dbmhoosier]

And there it is.

 

[dbmhoosier]

Yup, their goal is to destroy the lives of these poor, innocent tourists.

So when non-Jan 6 people commit crimes....say a black person caught doing something wrong, do you say the cops are ruining his life when he gets caught?

Just wondering.

Treat everyone the same and there will be no complaints. That means arresting everyone that participated in the BLM riots even if it was just a minor trespassing issue.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Yup, their goal is to destroy the lives of these poor, innocent tourists.

So when non-Jan 6 people commit crimes....say a black person caught doing something wrong, do you say the cops are ruining his life when he gets caught?

Just wondering.

'Rise up, women!': Angry crowds flood Capitol Hill to protest Brett Kavanaugh nomination

Angry demonstrators, fists raised and shouting "Shame!," poured into two Senate office buildings Friday to oppose the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

www.usatoday.com

Just so we are clear, I want to go back and do to these protestors EXACTLY what you are saying should be done to that couple. They are accused of the same type of crimes.

DeSantis should lock these people up for 2 years when he gets the chance while we investigate these domestic terrorists.

🤡

 

[Spartans9312]

You're an amazing goalpost mover. You bring up an issue (immigration) .... say let's find a way to work with the opposition to come to an agreement, the American people would rally behind that.

When shown how that occurred, what it looked like, and what the result was.... your response was, well that compromise sucked, and Boehner was the problem.

You aren't any more serious about any of this than Chip Roy is.

None of it is serious because at this point we aren’t paying for either the defense or non-defense spending. It’s all accounting gymnastics.

 

[CarRamRod1]

When will this clown drop out?

View embedded media

Who are you and the holdouts putting forward? Scalise and Jordan don’t want the job and back McCarthy.

“The swamp” is an utterly meaningless term. I assume you mean those Washington creatures who are most concerned about preserving their position and are beholden to special interests. Trump decried the swamp his entire campaign and then spent out the ass just like every supposed swamp creature who came before him.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Victoria Spartz voted present, lowering the winning threshold without helping McCarthy. I wonder if these folks are truly dysfunctional enough to accidentally elect Jeffries.

 

[anon_mya1phvcpf5x4]

'Rise up, women!': Angry crowds flood Capitol Hill to protest Brett Kavanaugh nomination

Angry demonstrators, fists raised and shouting "Shame!," poured into two Senate office buildings Friday to oppose the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

www.usatoday.com

Just so we are clear, I want to go back and do to these protestors EXACTLY what you are saying should be done to that couple. They are accused of the same type of crimes.

DeSantis should lock these people up for 2 years when he gets the chance while we investigate these domestic terrorists.

🤡

First off, it appears people did get arrested.

Second, comparing that to Jan 6 is laughable....how many people died on that one? Were people carrying nooses and zip ties and saying they were going to hang Brett? Did they break into a building where they were not allowed to be? Break through barricades? Attack police officers?

Anyone who gets caught committing a crime should have repercussions regardless of side but making that comparison just shows how you are clueless.

 

[DANC]

First off, it appears people did get arrested.

Second, comparing that to Jan 6 is laughable....how many people died on that one? Were people carrying nooses and zip ties and saying they were going to hang Brett? Did they break into a building where they were not allowed to be? Break through barricades? Attack police officers?

Anyone who gets caught committing a crime should have repercussions regardless of side but making that comparison just shows how you are clueless.

1 died on Jan 6. An unarmed 5' woman veteran. Killed by a trigger-happy Capitol cop.

 

[anon_mya1phvcpf5x4]

Victoria Spartz voted present, lowering the winning threshold without helping McCarthy. I wonder if these folks are truly dysfunctional enough to accidentally elect Jeffries.

It would be funny if someone fails to pay attention to how many people say "present".

I wonder if that accidentally happens, what it takes to kick the speaker out.

 

[BCCHoosier]

1 died on Jan 6. An unarmed 5' woman veteran. Killed by a trigger-happy Capitol cop.

She should not have resorted to such menacing behavior. The police that day rightfully feared for their safety. Too bad for her family she made such a stupid and selfish decision.