Don't waste your time. Facts don't matter to those addicted with TDS.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Don't waste your time. Facts don't matter to those addicted with TDS.

---

Was that meant for me? I was criticizing Trump.

aTmAg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Don't waste your time. Facts don't matter to those addicted with TDS.

---

Was that meant for me? I was criticizing Trump.

---

TDS goes both ways.

Quote:

---

Obama's final and largest budget was $4.2T.

Trumps first and smallest budget was $4.1T.

---

With fixed expenses increasing (like growing interest in debt, ss, etc). That represented a pretty big cut.

And, by cutting taxes, he got the economy going this increasing revenue.

But he wanted to do more. Trump will do much more this term. You know it, I know it, and everyone knows it. Even those republicans like Roy that are tying to slow him down know it. He's gonna cut spending.

Dacoldest said:

---

Here is a summary of notable Republican Congressional accomplishments. Meanwhile Chip hasn't done a damn thing but get in the way and defend his girl Liz Cheney.

---

Tell me you are a troll without telling me you're a troll.

Either that, or simply an ignorant fool. But congrats, every town square needs one.

Quote:

---

If this was Trump and Johnson's plan from the beginning maybe they should have included the actual conservatives in their scheming. This was an absolutely unnecessary own goal within the GOP.

---

Can't imagine Trump authored/or guided much of the first bill. He wouldn't have put in immunity for the wrongdoings against him into it or funded censorship of the right. That smacks of classic insertions by the shadow government in the White House.

But whatever it was, it was an avoidable "own goal" for sure as you say. Criminal even, in its stupid haste and tone-deafness.

I've seen two explanations that make sense:

1) Johnson is swamp and swamp is gonna swamp. The trouble here is that actual conservatives I respect claim him to be the most conservative SOH we've ever had. I forget who said that but I was shocked. (And my ability to look it up is a bit encumbered as I sit here in a theater prior to Nutcracker

2) Trump wanted to get it passed, even if not responsible or resembling anything conservative, to give some breathing room and make it a little easier to claim some easy wins in the first weeks after inauguration.

I think it was actually a bit of both. Trump wanted something passed and Johnson gave way too much ground initially to appease the swamp.

RED AG 98 said:

---

I've seen two explanations that make sense:

1) Johnson is swamp and swamp is gonna swamp. The trouble here is that actual conservatives I respect claim him to be the most conservative SOH we've ever had. I forget who said that but I was shocked.

2) Trump wanted to get it passed, even if not responsible or resembling anything conservative, to give some breathing room and make it a little easier to claim some easy wins in the first weeks after inauguration.

I think it was actually a bit of a mix of those two. Trump wanted something passed and Johnson gave way too much ground initially to appease the swamp.

---

That makes alot of sense (of the dumb real kind, but coherent). Except it seems Gingrich is easily the most conservative (and successful) right wing SOH have had in the last two centuries at least. Not as sure about the 19th C.

You know how we question Democrats for always voting in unison? We question it because it doesn't make sense and wreaks of weak minds who lack independent thought, or some sort of shady dealings have taken place. We were right. But now when our side doesn't do it, we get pissed. The truth is, this is exactly how it's supposed to be. Legislation at the federal level should be very difficult to reach a consensus.

My 2 bit thoughts..

He had whole fiery speech about J6 and seeking impeachment.

You just aren't paying attention.

The problem is the date. That is only seven days after Jan6 when nothing accurate was at hand, and there was much to alienate any conservative or traditional minded about what happened. What was the real argument against her then, as neocons go.

How has Roy been since the mid-terms even, or just last year?

"2) Trump wanted to get it passed, even if not responsible or resembling anything conservative, to give some breathing room and make it a little easier to claim some easy wins in the first weeks after inauguration."

Yes, he wanted to pass the expanded child tax deduction and no tax on tips/overtime. It's also help expand and extend the trump tax cuts. He was also going to move on the border immediately.

We were still going to cut spending but he might have to cobble some EOs together & jawbone to get border stuff going now.

RED AG 98 said:

---

I like Trump, a lot, and even more than back in either 16 or 20. This by was far his most disciplined campaign.

I like Roy, my congressman, a lot. He's a staunch small government, fiscal conservative.

If this was Trump and Johnson's plan from the beginning maybe they should have included the actual conservatives in their scheming. This was an absolutely unnecessary own goal within the GOP.

Lots of finger pointing and at least partial blame for both, which is a shame as it was almost certainly avoidable with better communication within the folks supposedly on the same team…

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Dacoldest said:

---

Here is a summary of notable Republican Congressional accomplishments. Meanwhile Chip hasn't done a damn thing but get in the way and defend his girl Liz Cheney.

---

Tell me you are a troll without telling me you're a troll.

Either that, or simply an ignorant fool. But congrats, every town square needs one.

---

He does like Miss Piggy

titan said:

---

The problem is the date. That is only seven days after Jan6 when nothing accurate was at hand, and there was much to alienate any conservative or traditional minded about what happened. What was the real argument against her then, as neocons go.

How has Roy been since the mid-terms even, or just last year?

---

titan said:

---

The problem is the date. That is only seven days after Jan6 when nothing accurate was at hand, and there was much to alienate any conservative or traditional minded about what happened. What was the real argument against her then, as neocons go.

How has Roy been since the mid-terms even, or just last year?

---

Well stated. It's easy to condemn Roy with almost 4 years of hindsight and subsequent events after 1/11/21.

When in fact all one is truly saying is that they condemn Roy for not joining the mob's knee-jerk reaction. But I guess our buddy Dacoldest thinks he's the board's Minority Report officer.

titan said:

---

The problem is the date. That is only seven days after Jan6 when nothing accurate was at hand, and there was much to alienate any conservative or traditional minded about what happened. What was the real argument against her then, as neocons go.

How has Roy been since the mid-terms even, or just last year?

---

"The date" was no problem. That hag had a history of TDS and the left turned down the nominations from the republicans and chose her specifically.

Days after Jan 6? LMAO. One second after she was "picked" (LMAO), everyone knew the fix was in.

Few days after Jan 6. LOL. That's really bad spin.

Quote:

---

Few days after Jan 6. LOL. That's really bad spin.

---

Science Denier said:

---

titan said:

---

The problem is the date. That is only seven days after Jan6 when nothing accurate was at hand, and there was much to alienate any conservative or traditional minded about what happened. What was the real argument against her then, as neocons go.

How has Roy been since the mid-terms even, or just last year?

---

"The date" was no problem. That hag had a history of TDS and the left turned down the nominations from the republicans and chose her specifically.

Days after Jan 6? LMAO. One second after she was "picked" (LMAO), everyone knew the fix was in.

Few days after Jan 6. LOL. That's really bad spin.

---

She wasn't "picked" until July 1. The resolution to establish the committee wasn't passed until June 30th of '21. Jordan and the other 4 republicans were named by McCarthy on July 19th, and rejected by Pelosi on July 21st.

Agreed that Cheney was vocally anti-Trump in the days after the 6th, but to use any of her involvement in the Committee to justify removing her from her leadership position on January 13th is a non sequitur.

She had not yet begun digging on her own grave.

And FTR, Chip Roy had a bit of different take just a month later... (and STILL before the select committee was formed.)

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), who defended Cheney at a Republican Conference meeting earlier this month at which she was reelected 145-61, said at a press conference on Thursday that she "forfeited her right" to lead the House GOP with her latest remarks.


Roy, who said just last month that Trump "deserves universal condemnation for what was clearly impeachable conduct" on Jan. 6, called for "another conversation" about Cheney's leadership.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2021/02/25/house-republicans-again-push-to-oust-liz-cheney-from-leadership-over-break-with-trump/

So, you are telling us that Chip Roy didn't know the cancer that was Liz Chaney when he supported her on the witch hunt that was Jan 6?

That's what you are going with?

I never said he supported her on the witch hunt that was Jan 6. You did.

I'm saying he thought it was premature to remove her from leadership position for voting for impeachment. He stated that he disagreed with her position, but he respected her right to make it at the time. That alone was not enough to remove her from her leadership position on Jan 13, and it had NOTHING to do with the witch hunt that was to follow.

A month later, after she had continually doubled down with Crazy town statements, he changed his mind.

5 months after that, the Select committee was formed, and Liz was firmly in the Dem camp.

People are conflating Roy's initial position to not overreact in the immediate aftermath of the 6th with all of Cheney's machinations that occurred in the following months, by which time Roy was definitely NOT a Cheney supporter.

Keep in mind that Cheney was actually reelected to her leadership position in Feburary by the Republican Conference by a vote of 145-61, so Roy obviously wasn't alone in giving Cheney some rope. She didn't lose her position until May, and then was appointed to the Select Committee in July (as a de-facto Dem).

It's simply a chronological sequence that Roy detractors are mashing up into one event 4 years after the fact to attempt to tarnish him by insinuating that Roy supported her on the Jan 6th Committee and after. And it is disengenuous to do so.

No you're just defending someone who had a long history of Anti Trump positions dating back to 2015, who stood on the House floor and defended one of the most corrupt members of the House, from one of the most corrupt families in politics, and he himself wasn't just defending Cheney he accused Trump of J6 wrongdoing. And then a month later changes his mind when the blowback was so bad from his own constituents that he had to shift positions to save his own ass from being primaried out of office. And hid in the corner like a coward while Trump faced down the Lawfare machine alone, Roy was quiet as a mouse until Trump pulled himself up by the bootstraps and let every RINO and democrat know he wasn't going anywhere. And when it became obvious to anyone paying attention that MAGA was not going to be stopped Ole Chip Roy claims to be all about MAGA.


And who is ole Chip allies with against Trump?

F*** him and that eyepatch wearing mutha******

You do realize you've now gone back almost 5 years to dig up this article, right?

jrdaustin said:

---

You do realize you've now gone back almost 5 years to dig up this article, right?

---

When the point is Roy has had TDS a long time, showing evidence of that 5 years ago seems, well, relevant.

My head is spinning from your spin. But, you do you. I'm finished with this one. I refer you to the REAL Twain quote above.

Merry Christmas

Science Denier said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

You do realize you've now gone back almost 5 years to dig up this article, right?

---

When the point is Roy has had TDS a long time, showing evidence of that 5 years ago seems, well, relevant.

---

Roy didn't oppose the bill because he has TDS. You've obviously not paid attention to his votes and positions on spending these past two years. TDS is irrelevant.

jrdaustin said:

---

My head is spinning from your spin. But, you do you. I'm finished with this one. I refer you to the REAL Twain quote above.

Merry Christmas

---

So you consider anyone who disagrees with you or refuses to enjoy the taste of the taint of Cheney, Roy and Crenshaw stupid?


Noted…… I'll consider it a badge of honor

I'm confused. I guess I haven't been following it close enough.

From what I understand, Trump comes out and attacks the original agreement because of all the 'fluff' that's in it. Then a couple days later he backs a bill that really isn't much better.

Is that a fair take? I am guessing the caucus he needs to get his cabinet picks passed issued a threat and that is why he is attacking Roy???

Logos Stick said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

You do realize you've now gone back almost 5 years to dig up this article, right?

---

When the point is Roy has had TDS a long time, showing evidence of that 5 years ago seems, well, relevant.

---

Roy didn't oppose the bill because he has TDS. You've obviously not paid attention to his votes and positions on spending these past two years. TDS is irrelevant.

---

Spot on. Disagreeing with Trump isn't TDS. Cruz, Rand, and pretty much most of the entire conservative base of the Republican party disagreed rather publicly with him in leading up to the 2016 election. Most of them came around, myself included, because he proved to be an extremely effective chief executive, in spite of all the blustery rhetoric.

The Lincoln Project, lots of other swamp rats, RINOs, and war hawks -- they have full on TDS and are pretty much against anything and everything that Trump suggests even if they previously would have supported it.

In contrast, Roy continues to advocate for the same positions -- voter id, legal immigration, strong 2A, spending reduction and limited government; and his voting record is stellar. Roy is not, however, a pushover or rubber stamp.

MarkTwain said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

My head is spinning from your spin. But, you do you. I'm finished with this one. I refer you to the REAL Twain quote above.

Merry Christmas

---

So you consider anyone who disagrees with you or refuses to enjoy the taste of the taint of Cheney, Roy and Crenshaw stupid?


Noted…… I'll consider it a badge of honor

---

Consider it whaterver you like, Sport.

But I actually consider one who makes a circular argument of using comments made 4-5 years ago to lump Roy into a group with Cheney & Crenshaw in 2024 to be worthy of the subject of the Twain quote you so proudly post.

You and other Roy detractors have provided nothing more than half-decade old comments to "justify" your attacks on Roy because of his vote last week, never minding that there was a valid reason for opposition to a complete blank check for the next two years on additional spending. Nah, it's much easier to jump to a juvenile conclusion that he's a Cheney "lover".

Good grief.

RED AG 98 said:

---

I've seen two explanations that make sense:

1) Johnson is swamp and swamp is gonna swamp. The trouble here is that actual conservatives I respect claim him to be the most conservative SOH we've ever had. I forget who said that but I was shocked. (And my ability to look it up is a bit encumbered as I sit here in a theater prior to Nutcracker

2) Trump wanted to get it passed, even if not responsible or resembling anything conservative, to give some breathing room and make it a little easier to claim some easy wins in the first weeks after inauguration.

I think it was actually a bit of both. Trump wanted something passed and Johnson gave way too much ground initially to appease the swamp.

---

Cruz is the one that made the statement about Johnson being the most conservative SOH in our lifetimes.

It was surprising to me as well because he's including Gingrich in his assessment.

Dacoldest said:

---

Unlike Chenery Republicans, there's plenty looking to support Trump's agenda and not run interference.

Chip is a just a modern day Don Quixote pretending he's a knight and attacking windmills.

Enjoy your moral victories while the US continues degrading though.

---

Reminds me of Speaker Ryan. When he was just a rep in the minority proposing budgets he was the most conservative Republican in the house. Once he finally got the opportunity to enact real budgets he walked away from his conservatism. It was all a show to keep from getting primaried.