The public collapse of the Republican party

[OldJourno]

As usual Rory and his class clown cohorts are wrong.
The more than slightly liberal Trump tried to build a wall to bolster border security. He had Republican majorities in the House and Senate and more importantly he ran on a platform of keeping non-citizens out of the country. If you are not a resident you do not have a right to be here unless you go through proper procedures.
But so many Republicans didn't share that vision, just as they didn't share the vision to get rid of Obamacare, to defund Planned Parenthood, to defund PBS and NPR. The last two are strictly for show, rounding errors on the budget, but they send a signal.
But the Republicans are no longer even interested in sending signals.
The Republican party is no longer a haven for conservatives and hasn't been for some time. But when it's too liberal for Donald Trump, perhaps it's time for a new political party.

 

[coati]

As usual Rory and his class clown cohorts are wrong.
The more than slightly liberal Trump tried to build a wall to bolster border security. He had Republican majorities in the House and Senate and more importantly he ran on a platform of keeping non-citizens out of the country. If you are not a resident you do not have a right to be here unless you go through proper procedures.
But so many Republicans didn't share that vision, just as they didn't share the vision to get rid of Obamacare, to defund Planned Parenthood, to defund PBS and NPR. The last two are strictly for show, rounding errors on the budget, but they send a signal.
But the Republicans are no longer even interested in sending signals.
The Republican party is no longer a haven for conservatives and hasn't been for some time. But when it's too liberal for Donald Trump, perhaps it's time for a new political party.

Dry your tears. That party you seek already exists. It is called the National Socialist Movement (NSM). Look it up.

 

[HisArpy]

Right now I think there are no real "parties" in politics. It's devolved to "us vs. them" with the intent to do nothing more than prevent "them" from winning something meaningless while important things go without any attention being paid to them.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

I was sure he was going to be demanding that 5,000 miles of concrete boondoggle with his dying breath.

Turns out Tiny is just a pussy.

#NotWinning

 

[BotanyBoy]

Dry your tears. That party you seek already exists. It is called the National Socialist Movement (MSM). Look it up.

Liberal =/= socialist.....in fact liberalism is in direct opposition to socialism....that's why I quit supporting (D)'s, they've shifted from liberals to socialists.

Liberalism

Liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/liberalism

Socialism

Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/socialism

Right now I think there are no real "parties" in politics. It's devolved to "us vs. them" with the intent to do nothing more than prevent "them" from winning something meaningless while important things go without any attention being paid to them.

Yea.....both sides are totally devoid of any ideological consistency when it comes to actually doing anything. All talk until they get up to the plate and shit the bed while the fast balls keep cruising by.

 

[coati]

Liberal =/= socialist.....in fact liberalism is in direct opposition to socialism....that's why I quit supporting (D)'s, they've shifted from liberals to socialists.

You are talking about a different use of the word socialism, which is the way it is used when not associated with the Nazism. The use of the word socialist in this context is an artifact of Hitler's choice of words.

Look up NSM or National Socialist Movement- it is not primarily about economic philosophy. In fact, the various chapters of NSM are very strident about government having no say whatsoever over private property.

 

[patient1]

As usual Rory and his class clown cohorts are wrong.
The more than slightly liberal Trump tried to build a wall to bolster border security. He had Republican majorities in the House and Senate and more importantly he ran on a platform of keeping non-citizens out of the country. If you are not a resident you do not have a right to be here unless you go through proper procedures.
But so many Republicans didn't share that vision, just as they didn't share the vision to get rid of Obamacare, to defund Planned Parenthood, to defund PBS and NPR. The last two are strictly for show, rounding errors on the budget, but they send a signal.
But the Republicans are no longer even interested in sending signals.
The Republican party is no longer a haven for conservatives and hasn't been for some time. But when it's too liberal for Donald Trump, perhaps it's time for a new political party.

Perhaps you can explain to me what it is that that's actually conservative about "Conservatives." It's apparently not about Conserving the environment, being conservative in a gov. budget or fiscal sense, or even being cautious about change.

 

[coati]

Right now I think there are no real "parties" in politics. It's devolved to "us vs. them" with the intent to do nothing more than prevent "them" from winning something meaningless while important things go without any attention being paid to them.

What you are describing sounds an awful lot like what Mitch McConnell did openly starting at the very beginning of the Obama administration. I seem to remember his words about how the number one priority of the Senate was to deny Obama any accomplishments and make him a one-term president.

Number One Priority. Stated openly. Right from the beginning. Like leading a pack of hyenas. With the hourly backing of Fox News.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Perhaps you can explain to me what it is that that's actually conservative about "Conservatives." It's apparently not about Conserving the environment, being conservative in a gov. budget or fiscal sense, or even being cautious about change.

https://memecreator.org/static/images/memes/4934584.jpg

 

[BotanyBoy]

You are talking about a different use of the word socialism, which is the way it is used when not associated with the Nazism. The use of the word socialist in this context is an artifact of Hitler's choice of words.

They are essentially the same thing just blaming different groups of people to go about doing it.

One goes for class warfare and sells it on egalitarianism the other goes for race and sells it on nationalism....

Same goals in mind, control the money and resources.

That's why Hitler and Stalin look far more alike than different when you get down to the nitty gritty.

Look up NSM or National Socialist Movement- it is not primarily about economic philosophy.

It does look social up front...and that's part of it's insidious nature.

Dig deeper and you will see just like with Hitler and the Nazis it is about economics, politics is ALWAYS about controlling the money and resources and always will be.

In fact, the various chapters of NSM are very strident about government having no say whatsoever over private property.

Why would they need to as long as it's all white people? In their minds that will bring about the utopia....no need to control property, everyone will have plenty as long as the other races are gone and not breathing up the master races air.

So goes their theory on the utopian society from the far right anyhow.


That's why I think this "far left" piece of shit and his Economic Freedom Fighter party we are seeing in S. Africa right now calling for the killing of whites??


https://images.theconversation.com/files/122141/original/image-20160511-18157-rrjp0f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=926&fit=clip


Who openly proclaim economic prosperity can only happen by taking out whitey?

Are actually more Nazi than Marxist.

 

[HisArpy]

What you are describing sounds an awful lot like what Mitch McConnell did openly starting at the very beginning of the Obama administration. I seem to remember his words about how the number one priority of the Senate was to deny Obama any accomplishments and make him a one-term president.

Number One Priority. Stated openly. Right from the beginning. Like leading a pack of hyenas. With the hourly backing of Fox News.

It also sounds a lot like Paleosi's most recent comments on funding the border wall.

To the point - it sounds like BOTH parties. As I said in my earlier post. And, which you buttressed in yours.

Kinda sucks to point fingers at yourself in the mirror doesn't it.

 

[Sean]

It also sounds a lot like Paleosi's most recent comments on funding the border wall.

To the point - it sounds like BOTH parties. As I said in my earlier post. And, which you buttressed in yours.

Kinda sucks to point fingers at yourself in the mirror doesn't it.

Yeah, because opposing a specific policy is exactly the same as a blanket declaration that everything would be opposed before it was even mooted.

#TimLogic

 

[Sweet_Cupcake]

Yeah, because opposing a specific policy is exactly the same as a blanket declaration that everything would be opposed before it was even mooted.

#TimLogic

You win.

 

[coati]

It also sounds a lot like Paleosi's most recent comments on funding the border wall.

To the point - it sounds like BOTH parties. As I said in my earlier post. And, which you buttressed in yours.

Kinda sucks to point fingers at yourself in the mirror doesn't it.

It does not suck at all, because you are making a false equivalency.

Pelosi and Schumer both stated recently that they had opportunities for bipartisan cooperation to pass certain bills that Trump would sign. McConnell just told his party to obstruct everything the previous President wanted to pass. Top priority for that Senate leader.

Pelosi actually counts some Republican votes to back up her position about not wasting money on a border wall that is supposed to run the entire length of our boundary with Mexico. McConnell just had his own party's votes for all of his obstruction, which ran the gamut from the ACA to judicial appointees.

So, the logical conclusion of that no-compromise position of the Republican Party was a primary race based upon who could be the most extreme. The Stable Genius won that race to the bottom.

Now we see recently that Democrats are winning races based upon promoting bipartisanship, such as in conservative Arizona. The Republicans transformed their party to the Repugnican Party of Trump. They nominated an extremist, sold out their ethics for power, and are now reduced to making endless excuses and false equivalencies.

 

[HisArpy]

Yeah, because opposing a specific policy is exactly the same as a blanket declaration that everything would be opposed before it was even mooted.

#TimLogic

That's Sean for you, not one iota of intellect or understanding. But hey, who am I to stand in the way of him making a fool of himself in public...

 

[phrodeau]

Can we see the GOP collapse on Google Street View?

 

[FGB]

ZZZZZZZ! "YAAAAWN"

Keep hoping and dreaming...

 

[HisArpy]

It does not suck at all, because you are making a false equivalency.

Pelosi and Schumer both stated recently that they had opportunities for bipartisan cooperation to pass certain bills that Trump would sign. McConnell just told his party to obstruct everything the previous President wanted to pass. Top priority for that Senate leader.

Pelosi actually counts some Republican votes to back up her position about not wasting money on a border wall that is supposed to run the entire length of our boundary with Mexico. McConnell just had his own party's votes for all of his obstruction, which ran the gamut from the ACA to judicial appointees.

So, the logical conclusion of that no-compromise position of the Republican Party was a primary race based upon who could be the most extreme. The Stable Genius won that race to the bottom.

Now we see recently that Democrats are winning races based upon promoting bipartisanship, such as in conservative Arizona. The Republicans transformed their party to the Repugnican Party of Trump. They nominated an extremist, sold out their ethics for power, and are now reduced to making endless excuses and false equivalencies.

Oh just fucking quit with this shit. You've making an enormous fool of yourself. Again.

Paleosi and company voted EN MASS against Turmp's DACA bill which gave them EVERYTHING THEY DEMANDED in immigration reform.

How is that not D obstruction?

Then there's this:

500 Days of Democrat obstruction

Neither side is without blame. Trying to point the finger at only the R's shows that you're an idiot.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Oh just fucking quit with this shit. You've making an enormous fool of yourself. Again.

Paleosi and company voted EN MASS against Turmp's DACA bill which gave them EVERYTHING THEY DEMANDED in immigration reform.

How is that not D obstruction?

Then there's this:

500 Days of Democrat obstruction

Neither side is without blame. Trying to point the finger at only the R's shows that you're an idiot.

Sure "neither side is without blame" but let's not play make believe.

Tiny etal are nominating people like Matthew Petersen who GOP Senator Kennedy was so frustrated during the advise and consent process ended up saying "Just because you've seen 'My Cousin Vinny' doesn't qualify you to be a federal judge," Kennedy said in the WWL interview. "And he has no litigation experience. And my job on the judiciary committee is to catch him. I would strongly suggest he not give up his day job."

When even the GOP is frustrated by the quality of the nominees it is not obstruction to more deeply vette these guys,

Plus McConnell went nuclear so seat these dopes to the bench to your hearts content. Dems can't stop it on the floor. Plus it is Flake that bottled up the Judiciary committee since October when he was denied a vote on the Special Council legislation.

As for the Exec branch employee they still have not even nominated 150 for the 700-ish posts.

And again McConnell controls the calendar. He can schedule hearings every day of he chooses to. He can schedule the Special Counsel vote if he wants to.

So that is a pitifully weak argument.

 

[Comshaw]

Oh just fucking quit with this shit. You've making an enormous fool of yourself. Again.

Paleosi and company voted EN MASS against Turmp's DACA bill which gave them EVERYTHING THEY DEMANDED in immigration reform.

How is that not D obstruction?

Then there's this:

500 Days of Democrat obstruction

Neither side is without blame. Trying to point the finger at only the R's shows that you're an idiot.

It DID NOT give the Democrats ALL THEY WANTED. ( Do you actually believe what you said or is it hyperbole? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and go with the second one.) It did give them protection for and a pathway to citizenship for the DACA kids, but it also demanded things they could not agree with.

Much like the opposition the Republicans had for Obama Care, the Democrats also have for the border wall.

The Coons-McCain bill was defeated by the senate Republicans 52 to 47.

The Toomey amendment didn't address DACA at all but instead wanted to penalize sanctuary cities. It failed 54- 45 with Republicans supporting it and Democrats opposing.

The Common Sense plan was defeated 54 to 45. Democrats almost unanimously backed the plan, along with eight Republicans. But the rest of the GOP conference and a handful of Democrats blocked the bill.

The Grassley bill failed, 39 to 60. Democrats opposed the bill en masse, joined by a notable number of Republicans, while most of the GOP conference supported it. And why did it fail ,even though it had provisions the Democrats wanted? Simple because of this:

It contained $25 billion to fund a southern border wall

and

Substantially curtail family immigration and eliminate the diversity visa lottery program in such a way that would gut the legal immigration system

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/12/17003552/senate-immigration-bill-floor-debate

You're really going to use a GOP website to try to make a point about Democratic obstructionism? Would you take the opinion on a Democratic website as balanced and unbiased? Of course you wouldn't. It holds true for the other side also.

Comshaw

 

[Colonel Hogan]

What you are describing sounds an awful lot like what Mitch McConnell did openly starting at the very beginning of the Obama administration. I seem to remember his words about how the number one priority of the Senate was to deny Obama any accomplishments and make him a one-term president.

Number One Priority. Stated openly. Right from the beginning. Like leading a pack of hyenas. With the hourly backing of Fox News.

It also sounds a lot like Paleosi's most recent comments on funding the border wall.

To the point - it sounds like BOTH parties. As I said in my earlier post. And, which you buttressed in yours.

Kinda sucks to point fingers at yourself in the mirror doesn't it.

Stop. You're both right. And wrong.

Advocacy to advance (or curtail) policy differences is NOT niggardly partisanship. If you want or don't want a border wall based on national security vs perceived irresponsible budgetary policy? Fine. If you want or don't want national health care based on extending coverage to disaffected classes vs perceived irresponsible budgetary policy? Fine. Even if you're wrong about the motivations and analysis behind these differences, your heart is at least in the right place with respect to what is motivating your basic philosophical position.

But when your plan for infrastructure improvements, national defense, health care, tax reform and all the rest of the big ticket items is substantially the same as the other guys' (which in those cases it is likely to be), then obstructionism simply for the sake of allowing your team to push a legislative ball across the goal line is, indeed, petty. There was a time when the minor (and sometimes even major) philosophical and practical differences could be resolved in conference committee. Today both parties kick the can down the road until they can achieve total control.

And HisArpy is quite right. Both parties do it routinely. Now I am the last person to deny Mitch McConnell's capability for pettiness. But at the very least, his preliminary call for obstruction to the Obama agenda was hardly based on total ignorance of what he knew was coming. And much of it was well within the range of legitimate policy differences. But he did not do himself any favors by giving the media such a juicy "kick me" note to superglue to his backside.

 

[OldJourno]

What's this? Trump is giving Republicans one more chance to show if there is anything inside those scrotums.
We'll see if the Republicans have the fortitude to fight for what would be a tiny fraction ($5B) of the annual budget.
I remain skeptical.

 

[Que]

Remember when a billion dollars used to be real money?

I want to see a shutdown just so that the American public can see how worthless their government actually is. There's very few functions that the government does that the American people are actually impacted by. Those functions can be covered out of incoming receipts by executive order. The executive branch gets to decide which checks go out.

He needs to sign an executive order right now announcing that no government employees will be paid any bach-pay for the time they are furloughed.

 

[phrodeau]

Oh just fucking quit with this shit. You've making an enormous fool of yourself. Again.

Paleosi and company voted EN MASS against Turmp's DACA bill which gave them EVERYTHING THEY DEMANDED in immigration reform.

How is that not D obstruction?

Then there's this:

500 Days of Democrat obstruction

Neither side is without blame. Trying to point the finger at only the R's shows that you're an idiot.

How does a minority party prevent legislation from passing in Congress? That didn't work when Republicans voted against the ACA. Why would it work for DACA?

 

[Que]

How does a minority party prevent legislation from passing in Congress? That didn't work when Republicans voted against the ACA. Why would it work for DACA?

Were you not here for the actual historical events as they occurred? The way the minority party was able to ram that crappy bill filled with the healthcare industry and drug pushers lobbyist's wettest of dreams down the American's throats was they pretended that it was a tax bill and they "reconciled" a completely blank sheet of paper with a simple majority.

Not even Justice Roberts could agree that the DACA bill is a tax bill so of course the Republicans cannot pass it with a simple majority.

You're really should stick to snark because you never know even the basics about anything that ou're talking about.