FbgTxAg said:

---

I don't necessarily disagree. But I'm curious as to what you think the answer is?

---

My answer to this idiocy of today?

First of all this "fight" is over nothing. If the Gaetz and Boebert faction get a total capitulation from leadership no bill they want will become law. No bad laws will be repealed. The debt will be exactly the same if McCarthy is Speaker or if Jim Jordan is Speaker. So what's the point? This is all theater. This allows these idiots a higher profile to gain power and raise money. I'm fine having some sort of fight, especially if it gets rid of politicians like McCarthy if it actually meant something. This is over nothing. We should punish politicians when they pull this crap.

This theater from today just makes people feel better. It makes them feel better because they want politics to be entertaining. This is why we are a dumb populace. Politics should never be entertainment. It should be boring. Getting the cameras out of congress would be a good first step. Then it would not encourage the behavior we see daily with our politicians.

To get fewer idiotic representatives the most important thing that needs to be understood by both sides is that the other side will win power occasionally. You're not going to get everything you want. When you understand that you might want to limit the damage the other side can do. If you're not going to get everything you want you have to understand that the other side is going to get some of what they want. That means you will have to compromise. What a horrible word that is.

You know, I would have taken that deal Pelosi offered of building the wall with 25 billion in funds to allow the "dreamers" a path to citizenship. Instead we have millions of people pouring through the border because we have a President who doesn't care about the border. Because "my side" wanted all of the Mexicans to just go home AND build the wall, we let the other side create a crisis at the border after a lost election. But didn't it feel so good to let AOC have it with the crying at the border memes?

To take that type of deal and compromise would have been good governance. It would have also been boring. Make politics boring and fewer of these characters will get elected, and the few that do won't matter.

I hope Roy and his group don't give one inch. Giving in got us where we are today.

Gbr1971 said:

---

FbgTxAg said:

---

I don't necessarily disagree. But I'm curious as to what you think the answer is?

---

My answer to this idiocy of today?

First of all this "fight" is over nothing. If the Gaetz and Boebert faction get a total capitulation from leadership no bill they want will become law. No bad laws will be repealed. The debt will be exactly the same if McCarthy is Speaker or if Jim Jordan is Speaker. So what's the point? This is all theater. This allows these idiots a higher profile to gain power and raise money. I'm fine having some sort of fight, especially if it gets rid of politicians like McCarthy if it actually meant something. This is over nothing. We should punish politicians when they pull this crap.

This theater from today just makes people feel better. It makes them feel better because they want politics to be entertaining. This is why we are a dumb populace. Politics should never be entertainment. It should be boring. Getting the cameras out of congress would be a good first step. Then it would not encourage the behavior we see daily with our politicians.

To get fewer idiotic representatives the most important thing that needs to be understood by both sides is that the other side will win power occasionally. You're not going to get everything you want. When you understand that you might want to limit the damage the other side can do. If you're not going to get everything you want you have to understand that the other side is going to get some of what they want. That means you will have to compromise. What a horrible word that is.

You know, I would have taken that deal Pelosi offered of building the wall with 25 billion in funds to allow the "dreamers" a path to citizenship. Instead we have millions of people pouring through the border because we have a President who doesn't care about the border. Because "my side" wanted all of the Mexicans to just go home AND build the wall, we let the other side create a crisis at the border after a lost election. But didn't it feel so good to let AOC have it with the crying at the border memes?

To take that type of deal and compromise would have been good governance. It would have also been boring. Make politics boring and fewer of these characters will get elected, and the few that do won't matter.

---

You are dealing with people who are willing to permanently damage our republic as they flood our country with illegals. You can't make deals with devils, you fight everything all the time and never give in. These evil people will always have you on your heals if you give anything.

McCarthy knew this would happen. He had no plan. He put himself before the party and the country, like he always has. This chaos is on him.

— Mike Crispi (@MikeCrispiNJ) January 3, 2023

Honestly, and I mean this with all love, the Republic is over. We live in a straight oligarchy with the trappings of freedom. It's going to burn down eventually because we have the worst political leadership on both sides since at least the 1880s if not the 1850s. So I don't give a damn, let the *****s squirm a bit.

ScottBowen said:

---

Gbr1971 said:

---

FbgTxAg said:

---

I don't necessarily disagree. But I'm curious as to what you think the answer is?

---

You know, I would have taken that deal Pelosi offered of building the wall with 25 billion in funds to allow the "dreamers" a path to citizenship. Instead we have millions of people pouring through the border because we have a President who doesn't care about the border. Because "my side" wanted all of the Mexicans to just go home AND build the wall, we let the other side create a crisis at the border after a lost election. But didn't it feel so good to let AOC have it with the crying at the border memes?

To take that type of deal and compromise would have been good governance. It would have also been boring. Make politics boring and fewer of these characters will get elected, and the few that do won't matter.

---

It would have been extremely foolish to take this deal. Dems would pocket the legalization and put a stop to the wall building as soon as they had the opportunityif it ever even got started. Legalization should not be allowed until after the border is secure.

---

Correct. Those who can't remember Simpson-Mazzoli amnesty are doomed to repeat it.

Artimus Gordon said:

---

I think the conservatives have made their protest be known. Time to vote for the alligator. The swamp tide sinks all boats.

---

Nope. Don't give in. McCarthy needs to go away

geoag58 said:

---

I hope Roy and his group don't give one inch. Giving in got us where we are today.

---

It is comical that people believe this.

These 19 "brave, principled conservatives" are nothing of the sort.

Had they been in the majority when the omnibus spending bill was passed it would have been the exact same $1.8 trillion. The only difference would be where the pork went.

The notion that there is some grassroots minority that is serious about the budget is outlandishly preposterous on its face. No one in government wants to cut spending. Not a single elected official in DC. That is how they get reelected. And for that matter their constituents don't want them to cut spending either. The vast majority of the electorate are just fine with things as they are.

Know how you can tell? Because the only time the republicans make any fuss about spending is when they are out of power. When they have zero ability to actually implement any spending cuts, then they are more than willing to go to the mattresses (theatrically of course) and hold a filibuster that goes several whole hours but accomplishes nothing. Then they will shut down the government to show people just how serious they are about spending that they know they can't do anything about.

The man these savants point to as their guiding light managed to damn near double the federal budget in a mere 4 years! That sure sounds fiscally responsible and oh so conservative to me!

But the best part is that the only reason that they engage in this ridiculous political kabuki theater is because it works. People fall for it every time, hook, line and sinker. It reminds me of the moron communists that hold fast to their insistence that communism will work this time because all the previous disastrous attempts were not real communism. But this time it's gonna happen!

The 19 nimrods know that we are at least 9 months from having any real budget discussions again, given that they just passed one about a week ago. And that any spending cuts (which would at best be reductions in the projected rate of growth, not an actual cut) are DOA in the Senate. They know they will never be called on to actually do anything to "stand up" for any of the values they are paying lip service to right now. So they engage in this little self-serving dog and pony virtue signaling extravaganza to rile up their base who are too willingly credulous to realize they are getting led around by the nose again.

Incidentally, how many terms does it take for a "true conservative" to become a swamp denizen? I know this may seem to rank up there with the tootsie pop conundrum but the truth is its a trick question. The answer is 0, because they are swamp creatures from day 1.

If Kevin McCarthy and Mitch McConnell are the face of conservatism and the leaders of the Republican Party then conservatism is dead.

pagerman @ work said:

---

geoag58 said:

---

I hope Roy and his group don't give one inch. Giving in got us where we are today.

---

It is comical that people believe this.

These 19 "brave, principled conservatives" are nothing of the sort.

Had they been in the majority when the omnibus spending bill was passed it would have been the exact same $1.8 trillion. The only difference would be where the pork went.

The notion that there is some grassroots minority that is serious about the budget is outlandishly preposterous on its face. No one in government wants to cut spending. Not a single elected official in DC. That is how they get reelected. And for that matter their constituents don't want them to cut spending either. The vast majority of the electorate are just fine with things as they are.

Know how you can tell? Because the only time the republicans make any fuss about spending is when they are out of power. When they have zero ability to actually implement any spending cuts, then they are more than willing to go to the mattresses (theatrically of course) and hold a filibuster that goes several whole hours but accomplishes nothing. Then they will shut down the government to show people just how serious they are about spending that they know they can't do anything about.

The man these savants point to as their guiding light managed to damn near double the federal budget in a mere 4 years! That sure sounds fiscally responsible and oh so conservative to me!

But the best part is that the only reason that they engage in this ridiculous political kabuki theater is because it works. People fall for it every time, hook, line and sinker. It reminds me of the moron communists that hold fast to their insistence that communism will work this time because all the previous disastrous attempts were not real communism. But this time it's gonna happen!

The 19 nimrods know that we are at least 9 months from having any real budget discussions again, given that they just passed one about a week ago. And that any spending cuts (which would at best be reductions in the projected rate of growth, not an actual cut) are DOA in the Senate. They know they will never be called on to actually do anything to "stand up" for any of the values they are paying lip service to right now. So they engage in this little self-serving dog and pony virtue signaling extravaganza to rile up their base who are too willingly credulous to realize they are getting led around by the nose again.

Incidentally, how many terms does it take for a "true conservative" to become a swamp denizen? I know this may seem to rank up there with the tootsie pop conundrum but the truth is its a trick question. The answer is 0, because they are swamp creatures from day 1.

---

Absolute BS. Every time the republicans are in power, they are lead by RINOs like Boehner, McCarthy, and Ryan. Never in history has a freedom caucus member been speaker. So you have absolutely no basis to claim that if a freedom caucus member had been in charge we would have had the same $1.8M spending bill. Zero. Nada.


Nobody in this thread pushing for McCarthy or bashing these 19 can EVER again complain about spending or size of government. If you ever have in the past, then you are hypocrites in every sense of the word.

Gbr1971 said:

---

FbgTxAg said:

---

I don't necessarily disagree. But I'm curious as to what you think the answer is?

---

My answer to this idiocy of today?

First of all this "fight" is over nothing. If the Gaetz and Boebert faction get a total capitulation from leadership no bill they want will become law. No bad laws will be repealed. The debt will be exactly the same if McCarthy is Speaker or if Jim Jordan is Speaker. So what's the point? This is all theater. This allows these idiots a higher profile to gain power and raise money. I'm fine having some sort of fight, especially if it gets rid of politicians like McCarthy if it actually meant something. This is over nothing. We should punish politicians when they pull this crap.

This theater from today just makes people feel better. It makes them feel better because they want politics to be entertaining. This is why we are a dumb populace. Politics should never be entertainment. It should be boring. Getting the cameras out of congress would be a good first step. Then it would not encourage the behavior we see daily with our politicians.

To get fewer idiotic representatives the most important thing that needs to be understood by both sides is that the other side will win power occasionally. You're not going to get everything you want. When you understand that you might want to limit the damage the other side can do. If you're not going to get everything you want you have to understand that the other side is going to get some of what they want. That means you will have to compromise. What a horrible word that is.

You know, I would have taken that deal Pelosi offered of building the wall with 25 billion in funds to allow the "dreamers" a path to citizenship. Instead we have millions of people pouring through the border because we have a President who doesn't care about the border. Because "my side" wanted all of the Mexicans to just go home AND build the wall, we let the other side create a crisis at the border after a lost election. But didn't it feel so good to let AOC have it with the crying at the border memes?

To take that type of deal and compromise would have been good governance. It would have also been boring. Make politics boring and fewer of these characters will get elected, and the few that do won't matter.

---

This would be all nice and ideal but Democrats very rarely compromise on anything. Why do Republicans always have to take the high road? I'm tired of it and I know that sentiment is shared across this board.

Kozmozag said:

---

Pelosi was successful. She never got rebuked by her own, and increased the size of government dramatically when she was speaker.

---

Stalin was successful too. Doesn't mean he was good.