House Republicans in Disarray

[honorentheos]

Weird how you independently came up with the same talking points as mainstream conservative media sources. Must make them valid, huh?

Same tiresome BS team v. team game.

Weird how I view the tired contrarian arguments that aren't for anything in particular but just bitching about the two party system essentially the same way.

[Res Ipsa]

1. Democrats didn't even try because they wanted a campaign issue.

Yes, you've said the same thing twice now. It's been false both times. The legislation you say Ds didn't try to pass was passed twice by the House last session and was introduced in the Senate, where it couldn't get the 2/3 necessary for a cloture vote. It was introduced this session in both the House and the Senate. https://reproductiverights.org/rebuildi ... ntroduced/ But, yeah, repeat your conspiracy theorist talking point a third time.

2. I have two nieces that are LGTBQ and one of them just got engaged. Good for her. The marriage laws should remain. However, we need to come together and just settle the divisive issues once and for all. Both parties use these issues to divide so we don't attack the real monopolistic problems their benefactors care about. We are becoming more and more like South America with its 1% owning the overwhelming majority of assets. It's got to change.

I'll raise your pair of nieces with a pair of transgender daughters. One has a rough case of OCD, and is scared shitless that, if Republicans gain national power, she'll be thrown in jail for promoting trans ideology. She got that idea from the Heritage Foundation's blueprint that I quoted above. Now, how is she supposed to come together with people who equate her identity with pornography? When you find a magic wand that makes all divisive issues go away except the one you care about, let me know. Until then, when I see bigotry, I'll continue to call it out.

3. Where are they criminalizing free speech? The democrats are the ones bullying social media to kill free speech.

Come on counselor, do we have to go through where and when "free speech" applies? Unless government nationalizes social media, "free speech" doesn't apply. Intolerance of speech by private persons and groups may be rude or may be intolerant, but it's not a violation of anyone's free speech rights. On the other hand, anti-abortion statutes elected by Republicans have criminalized the right of doctors to give medical advice to their patients. Some of them force doctors to make statements that are not consistent with the required standard of care. The right yammers on about "cancel culture," while at the same time uses the coercive power of the state to criminalize speech they don't like.

4. They aren't authoritarian, just in disagreement with the oligopoly and so were painted with this authoritarian brush, because going against our beloved authoritarian leaders must be authoritarian. Seems like projection. Meanwhile, the Biden Administration wants to kill free speech on social media. Seems fascist to me. I think the 5th Circuit case was just granted Cert.

MAGA, the dominant populist movement in the United States is 100% authoritarian. Like, ignoring the results of an election authoritarian. Like threaten the Vice President with violence if he upholds the constitution authoritarian. Like threaten House members with violence if they don't vote for Jim Jordan as speaker. Like, Democrats are an existential evil that need to be exterminated authoritarian.

Try and make the case that Biden is more authoritarian than Trump. With, you know, facts. How is the Biden administration trying to "kill" free speech on social media. I'll wait.

5. How about an independent audit like corporations do? Let's see where the money is going and while we are at it, audit the DoD and track down where the money went when it fails.

That doesn't answer my questions. I agree that the recommendations of the GAO should be implemented so that it can perform a complete audit of federal agencies. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-294r Without those, it's not possible to audit. So, how much additional money are you willing to spend and pay taxes for to get the government's financial reporting systems into auditable condition?

8. Yet there is at least one nobel prize winner that disagrees that there are problems with the climate: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/no ... r-AA1eyC3S

Here we go again. You're talking about an 80-year old theoretical and experimental particle physicist who has never published a paper on climate s science. He has zero relevant expertise when it comes to climate science, yet claims to know more about the climate than the hundreds of scientists whose work is presented in the IPCC reports. But he is on the board of directors of an organization funded by the Mercers that is dedicated to spreading pro-fossil fuel propaganda. His "cancellation" is in fact the IMF canceling one scheduled talk. The only real mystery is why the IMF wanted to hear from an unqualified climate crank in the first place. It's not like the IMF's focus is entangled photons.

This is the phony expert gambit that climate deniers have been trying to snooker folks with for decades.

Surely this guy is wrong and it should be easy to show. Cancelling him is not the answer. The answer to bad speech is good speech, not censorship or cancellation.

Science isn't done through advocacy groups funded by political activists. It's done in the literature. I've read some of his claims. They are the same old pseudo scientific nonsense that climate denial groups funded by the "oil oligarchs" They've been stated and beaten down by evidence for decades. None of us have a right to speak to the IMF and the IMF has no obligation to listen to a physicist who is unqualified to speak on the topic they are interested in. You're confusing the right to speak with the right to be taken seriously. He can publish in his organizations publications. He can give speeches to anyone who wants to listen. But he has no right to a specific audience.

But thanks for confirming that you're on team anti-science.

9. Part of the 5th Circuit case is about shutting down scientists from Harvard and Stanford for daring to commit wrongspeak regarding the pandemic. How about hearing them out and showing us where they are wrong?

The case that you're referring to is a paranoid conspiracy theorists fever dream. Why not hear the flat earthers out just one more time? How many times are we obligated to give a platform to and then rebut sheer nonsense?

[ajax18]

It looks like Ben Shapiro was dead wrong on this one and so were House Democrats who thought of Gaetz as a useful idiot to hurt McCarthy. Efforts to destroy Matt Gaetz through false sex trafficking allegations have failed in spite of the power wielded by the partisan political justice system. The grip of the deep state and their disenfranchisement and abuse of the working taxpayer is starting to unravel. For those still on welfare, the fear of having to return to the workforce should be very real now. That infinite government teet might at last once start to shrink again.

“MAGA is ascendant,” Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) said following the election of Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.) as House speaker.

The election of Johnson, who is a strong support of Donald Trump, has triggered Democrats and leftists across the country.

Gaetz, however, sees it as a victory for the “MAGA movement” and a sign of the waning power of the “swamp.” (Trending: Meet Mike Johnson, Your New House Speaker)

Gaetz described Johnson’s victory as evidence of the growing influence of the MAGA movement within the Republican Party.

“The swamp is on the run. MAGA is ascendant. If you don’t think that moving from Kevin McCarthy to MAGA Mike Johnson shows the ascendance of this movement and where the power in the Republican Party truly lies, then you’re not paying attention,” Mr. Gaetz declared.

He also criticized former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), accusing him of attempting to sabotage the chances of other speaker nominees.

Gaetz said there was evidence that the former speaker “was worried that there was going to be this great, unifying moment” of rallying behind Mr. Johnson that would hurt Mr. McCarthy’s chances of being reelected, so “he scuttled the unifying moment.” (Trending: Dirty Trick Inside Biden’s $100 Billion Bill)

“So, they flame out terribly,” Mr. Gaetz said. “Mike Johnson’s gaining momentum. Ultimately, McCarthy gets 43 to vote for him on a secret ballot. But Mike Johnson gets a majority.”

“And when we called for the roll call, do you know how many people voted for Kevin McCarthy? Zero,” said Mr. Gaetz.

Gaetz hailed Johnson as an honorable and respected figure who will do great things for the country.

“Everyone in the room knew at that moment that I wasn’t the force for chaos; I wasn’t causing disunity; that for the last three weeks, the reason the House of Representatives has been paralyzed is because, for his own selfish gain, Kevin McCarthy was sabotaging the candidacy of anyone else because he was plotting a return,” Mr. Gaetz charged.

“They are crying, they are hand-wringing, they are bed-wetting over on K Street because we have an honorable, righteous man who is about to take this position. He’s going to do great things for the country,” Mr. Gaetz said, referring to “the swamp.”

Johnson, an attorney and former radio host, emphasized the House’s commitment to serving the American people in his first speech as speaker.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 4ae1&ei=19

[canpakes]

2. I have two nieces that are LGTBQ and one of them just got engaged. Good for her. The marriage laws should remain. However, we need to come together and just settle the divisive issues once and for all. Both parties use these issues to divide so we don't attack the real monopolistic problems their benefactors care about. We are becoming more and more like South America with its 1% owning the overwhelming majority of assets. It's got to change.

I agree with the final two sentences, but I’m curious about the bolded part, and ask that you expand on this.

1. How does the bolded part relate to the last two sentences?

2. What are the actual ‘division’ tactics being used, and who is being divided, and how are they affected?

[Res Ipsa]

It's time to check in how the House Republicans in array is going.

With a government shutdown looming this Friday, Speaker Johnson had to pull two of the five remaining unpassed appropriations bills from the floor last week due to R infighting. Finally conceding that he can't get his party members in order, Speaker Johnson proposed over the weekend a genius plan. Instead of passing a clean continuing resolution funding the government while the Rs get their act together and while Rs and Ds hold conferences to send final appropriations bills to the President (not one has been sent to him so far), Speaker Johnson wants to replace the threat of a government shutdown with two threats of a government shutdown. And it's not clear he's got the R votes secured to pass it.

So, today what us the house doing? Well, not passing funding bills. Marjorie Taylor Green (R-crazytown) will be introducing a bill later this afternoon call for impeachment of the the DHS secretary.

[Doctor Steuss]

Remember...

Shutting down a freeway, preventing several thousand people from working for a day: UnAmerican terrorist Marxist communist bad way to protest.

Shutting down the entire United States Government, preventing millions from working for an indefinite period of time: Super patriot freedom way to protest.

[Res Ipsa]

Hooray for Array!!! The House Rs finally got their act together and came together to pass a continuing resolution to avoid a government shutdown on Friday.

Oh, wait. I jumped the gun. The House Rs couldn't pass anything amongst themselves. After the MAGAs threatened to use a procedural maneuver to prevent a vote at all on the Speaker's proposal, Speaker Johnson was forced to hold a vote to suspend the rules so that a vote could be taken. That requires a 2/3 vote, and that means...oh horror of all horrors...the Democrats.

Yes, Speaker Johnson needed the Democrats help to get anything done, and they supplied the votes. Government shutdown averted.

Two Democrats (maybe from red leaning districts) voted no.
Fifty-three Republicans voted no.

Let's repeat that -- The MAGAs would not allow a straight up or down vote on Speaker Johnson's proposal. Fifty-three Republicans voted to shut down the government.

House Republicans are still in disarray. When former Speaker McCarthy did the same thing that Speaker Johnson just did, the MAGAs called for a vote to remove him as speaker.

Maybe Johnson will quickly learn what McCarthy refused to accept: the House is incapable of functioning on R votes alone. Perhaps he won't wait until the government is on the brink of shutting down before reaching across the aisle to work with Ds to actually accomplish things for the benefit of the American people.

I won't hold my breath.

[Some Schmo]

I think the #1 reason GOP politicians act the way they do is that they bank on the fact their base does not pay attention to what they do, and they have right-wing media making sure that's the case.

#2 is their confidence in their ability to BS their voters.

And #3 might be knowing the Democrat voters do pay attention and will be driven insane by their outrageous behavior (although that's probably giving GOP politicians way too much credit. Children don't misbehave to "own the libs." They do it because they're emotionally disturbed).