It's an almost impossible job i don't think MJ is the problem

The Ds had a similar issue with the pro Palestinian crowd as JB tried to manage the current Israeli conflict

MJ worked to create a 1500 page piece of crap bill that he was fine bringing to the floor for a vote. He needs to go.

Sq 17 said:

---

It's an almost impossible job i don't think MJ is the problem

The Ds had a similar issue with the pro Palestinian crowd as JB tried to manage the current Israeli conflict

---

Gengrich had no problem doing it.

He also wasn't afraid to pass a bill that he knew would either be voted down by the Senate or vetoed.

Quote:

---

Republicans swept the 1994 elections and won control of both the House and Senate during the 104th Congress (19951997) for the first time in 40 years. Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia set an ambitious course behind the Republicans' "Contract with America." President William J. Clinton vetoed Republican spending and tax cuts, and an ensuing budget impasse resulted in two government shutdowns. In 1996, Congress and the White House compromised on an overhaul of the nation's welfare system.

---

Gingrich was before the Freedom Caucus , America First , Let it burn crowd start winning districts and He had a much larger majority

likely MJ doesn't survive We will see how the next guy does I think Trump declares no confidence in MJ tomorrow afternoon

Logos Stick said:

---

MJ worked to create a 1500 page piece of crap bill that he was fine bringing to the floor for a vote. He needs to go.

---

Yes, he does. He has been terrible since taking over as speaker. We should have known he was done after that meeting with Biden, McConnell, and a couple of democrats, when he completely folded on his "no more aid for Ukraine" stance.

Sq 17 said:

---

Gingrich was before the Freedom Caucus , America First , Let it burn crowd start winning districts and He had a much larger majority

likely MJ doesn't survive We will see how the next guy does I think Trump declares no confidence in MJ tomorrow afternoon

---

All Johnson has to do is push Conservative bills and stop worrying if the Senate will vote no or if Biden will veto the bill. It really is that simple. Stop having closed door meetings with Democrats and giving them every damn thing they want.

Quote:

---

Contract with America, a document signed Sept. 27, 1994, on the Capitol steps in Washington, D.C., by members of the Republican minority before the Republican Party gained control of Congress in 1994. The "Contract with America" outlined legislation to be enacted by the House of Representatives within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress (199596). Among the proposals were tax cuts, a permanent line-item veto, measures to reduce crime and provide middle-class tax relief, and constitutional amendments requiring term limits and a balanced budget. With the exception of the constitutional amendment for term limits, all parts of the "Contract with America" were passed by the House, under the leadership of the speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.

---

I don't disagree…but then blood was on Schumer's hands for shutting down the government…

BTKAG97 said:

---

Sq 17 said:

---

Gingrich was before the Freedom Caucus , America First , Let it burn crowd start winning districts and He had a much larger majority

likely MJ doesn't survive We will see how the next guy does I think Trump declares no confidence in MJ tomorrow afternoon

---

All Johnson has to do is push Conservative bills and stop worrying if the Senate will vote no or if Biden will veto the bill. It really is that simple. Stop having closed door meetings with Democrats and giving them every damn thing they want.

Quote:

---

Contract with America, a document signed Sept. 27, 1994, on the Capitol steps in Washington, D.C., by members of the Republican minority before the Republican Party gained control of Congress in 1994. The "Contract with America" outlined legislation to be enacted by the House of Representatives within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress (199596). Among the proposals were tax cuts, a permanent line-item veto, measures to reduce crime and provide middle-class tax relief, and constitutional amendments requiring term limits and a balanced budget. With the exception of the constitutional amendment for term limits, all parts of the "Contract with America" were passed by the House, under the leadership of the speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.

---

---

It really is that simple. Unfortunately, we keep ending up with republicans in power that can't figure that out.

BTKAG97 said:

---

f1ghtintexasaggie said:

---

No one forced a vote on this specific legislation but Speaker Johnson. He could have just let the Ds eat a shutdown, but he's too big a ***** to fight fire with with fire. He'd rather coordinate, even ally himself, with those same Dems.

---

Exactly

---

Was Trump willing to let him "eat a shutdown", or was he not wanting that going into January?

Still doesn't explain why he let a Dem-style omnibus come up first.

titan said:

---

BTKAG97 said:

---

f1ghtintexasaggie said:

---

No one forced a vote on this specific legislation but Speaker Johnson. He could have just let the Ds eat a shutdown, but he's too big a ***** to fight fire with with fire. He'd rather coordinate, even ally himself, with those same Dems.

---

Exactly

---

Was Trump willing to let him "eat a shutdown", or was he not wanting that going into January?

Still doesn't explain why he let a Dem-style omnibus come up first.

---

"If there is going to be a shutdown of government, let it begin now, under the Biden Administration, not after January 20th, under 'TRUMP,'" Trump posted on Truth Social. "This is a Biden problem to solve, but if Republicans can help solve it, they will!"

BTKAG97 said:

---

titan said:

---

BTKAG97 said:

---

f1ghtintexasaggie said:

---

No one forced a vote on this specific legislation but Speaker Johnson. He could have just let the Ds eat a shutdown, but he's too big a ***** to fight fire with with fire. He'd rather coordinate, even ally himself, with those same Dems.

---

Exactly

---

Was Trump willing to let him "eat a shutdown", or was he not wanting that going into January?

Still doesn't explain why he let a Dem-style omnibus come up first.

---

"If there is going to be a shutdown of government, let it begin now, under the Biden Administration, not after January 20th, under 'TRUMP,'" Trump posted on Truth Social. "This is a Biden problem to solve, but if Republicans can help solve it, they will!"

---

So this is not on Trump. That particular line doesn't hold up.

$300 Billion in a 3-month bill. Extrapolate THAT number to one year.

Chip Roy should be promoted.

All R's who voted for this are the ones who should be on the radar.

Congress just created another $300 billion of problems for Americans

This is oppressive

This must change

2025 can’t come soon enough

Republicans can’t proceed with business as usual

Never again pic.twitter.com/bZcoVsj8jG

— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) December 21, 2024

You are correct. Unsustainable. The "conservatives" who keep advocating for spending increases under the guise of strategy are lost.

It took over 200 years for the U.S. debt to reach $12 trillion.

$12 trillion is how much we added in 4 years between 2020 and 2024. pic.twitter.com/O8MyZiMh76

— The Rabbit Hole (@TheRabbitHole84) December 20, 2024

Anyone that questions djt is a RINO.

aTmAg said:

---

Philip J Fry said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Philip J Fry said:

---

So in other words, he voted with the democrats. Got it.

---

Weird how you are willing to so openly lie like that. You don't feel even a twinge of shame?

---

Where is the lie? That's literally what happened. Democrats voted against it. Chip voted against it. Sort of the end of the discussion. Everything else is just you trying to justify it

---

Saying he voted "with" the democrats implied he agrees with them and joined them side by side. That is absolutely not what happened and you know it.

That is like saying Goldwater was a racist who voted "with" the segregationists when he voted against the civil rights act. Despite him previously desegregated the senate cafeteria so that his black assistant could eat there like everybody else. He really voted against it because it dictated it to the private sector and he realized that it would be used to force quotas in the future (and he was 100% correct).

---

You could not have picked a better example to illustrate the short sightedness the GOP suffers from. That vote caused much of the racial realignment and significant loss of the GOP voting block. All for nothing except a losing principled stance

Chip Roy is such a detriment to the republican platform.

A political philistine that allows Democrats to strategically out-maneuever any major conservative reform. He and his ilk are the easiest controlled opposition in the world for dems.

But he gets his viral, speech clips he and so many folks here love so much. Congrats guys!

What have all of the "enlightened" Republicans done for you? I'm sure we'd have a balanced budget if people like Chip Roy would have gotten out of their way.

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.

Again, what victories do you have? We have a huge spending problem. We've tried it your way for decades and it's been a failure. Nobody will address the issue unless their hand is forced.

Red Fishing Ag93 said:

---

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

Dan Scott said:

---

This guy is becoming my favorite congressman

We got played. No Democrats voted against it. More voted for it than Republicans. pic.twitter.com/OUiEhdepLM

— Tim Burchett (@timburchett) December 20, 2024

---

Burchett is one of the good ones.

---

Agreed. Of note though, he too voted No and is complaining about all the questionalble billions of extra spending in the bill.

The people that played the R's are Johnson, Jeffries, McConnell, and Schumer.

“We” didn’t have a deal

Schumer, McConnell, Johnson & Jeffries had a deal

They didn’t bother to share it with the other 531 members of Congress until yesterday

And that deal sucked https://t.co/ZoRjHADHas

— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) December 20, 2024

---

Interesting that this was the exact same play by McConnell from the playbook that provided us with the "bipartisan" border deal, isn't it?

And look how much mileage the Dems and MSM got out of that fiasco.

McConnell cannot retire soon enough.

Philip J Fry said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Philip J Fry said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Philip J Fry said:

---

So in other words, he voted with the democrats. Got it.

---

Weird how you are willing to so openly lie like that. You don't feel even a twinge of shame?

---

Where is the lie? That's literally what happened. Democrats voted against it. Chip voted against it. Sort of the end of the discussion. Everything else is just you trying to justify it

---

Saying he voted "with" the democrats implied he agrees with them and joined them side by side. That is absolutely not what happened and you know it.

That is like saying Goldwater was a racist who voted "with" the segregationists when he voted against the civil rights act. Despite him previously desegregated the senate cafeteria so that his black assistant could eat there like everybody else. He really voted against it because it dictated it to the private sector and he realized that it would be used to force quotas in the future (and he was 100% correct).

---

You could not have picked a better example to illustrate the short sightedness the GOP suffers from. That vote caused much of the racial realignment and significant loss of the GOP voting block. All for nothing except a losing principled stance

---

2024 is very different from the 1960s. The very young fledgling modern American conservative movement didn't have a way to bypass the very limited channels available for messaging in the 1960s. They didn't fully understand how well the Marxists had infiltrated the African American community under the guise of community organizing. They understood the problems within academia and specifically journalism schools, but by the 1960s the Marxism in academia problem was already 50 years in the making. It was a complex problem that would take a lot of time and money to solve. The movement had to prioritize what it felt it could do to maximize blocking Marxism. They kind of had to put their eggs all in one or two baskets and go from there. Political think tanks and getting their guy in the office of President was the first phase of the plan in the 1970s. Building a coalition of anti-communist voters took a lot of money and time, but they found the perfect person to carry their message.

They didn't really have infrastructure to combat any of the messaging going on within the AA communities until the late 1980s and quite frankly they lacked a vision for it even after the infrastructure was in place. Some ground was made up in the 1990s and early 00s. The rise of Obama and launch of BLM in 2008-2012 was all pretty much a well orchestrated counter-offensive that effectively set back race relations between AA and Whites, especially those carrying the mantle of Goldwater and Reagan conservatism , 30 years.

As evidenced by the rise of Trump and his staying power 2016-2024, including the growth of popularity among working class and Latino and Black men. The Marxists have miscalculated the landscape of mass communication among their voting block. There is ample evidence they continue to miscalculate the tectonic shift that occurred with the rise of podcasting and Musk purchase and control of a significant modern "public square". The additional consequence of this seems to have reached even beyond the working class into the tech sector, which has gained control of many media and entertainment platforms built from the ashes of failing old media channels like print, mail, and OTA.

The Marxist empire will certainly strike back, but there is lots of evidence that their safe spaces like academia are beginning to show some cracks and conservatives try to make more and more ground up at the sources of Marxist indoctrination.

Of course the GOPs own worst enemy are the factions within that most often leave Marxists with very little work to do. We shall see how all that plays out as well.

The other failure of GOP of the past, is not using power effectively when they have it. We shall see if they make the same mistake 2025-2026.

But the landscape of the principled stand for federalism by Goldwater in the 1960s should be seen very differently than what can be done in 2024-2026. Look no further than anti- Project 2025 campaign and the Lawfare Against Trump 2020-2024. Both were hundreds of millions of dollars in Marxist spending and neither of them achieved their goals.

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.


### **Legislative Accomplishments**
1. **Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (2017):**
- The most significant tax reform in decades.
- Reduced corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%.
- Cut individual tax rates and doubled the standard deduction.
- Repealed the individual mandate penalty from the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

2. **Criminal Justice Reform First Step Act (2018):**
- A bipartisan effort to reform sentencing laws and improve prison conditions.
- Focused on rehabilitation and reduced mandatory minimum sentences for some offenses.

3. **Deregulation:**
- Used the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to repeal 16 Obama-era regulations in industries like energy and finance.
- Pushed legislation to streamline environmental reviews and reduce bureaucratic hurdles for infrastructure projects.

4. **Appointment of Judges:**
- Worked with Trump to confirm over 230 federal judges, including three Supreme Court Justices (Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett).
- Reshaped the federal judiciary for decades.

5. **VA Mission Act (2018):**
- Overhauled the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
- Expanded healthcare options for veterans outside the VA system.

6. **USMCA Trade Agreement (2019):**
- Replaced NAFTA with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.
- Updated trade policies to address intellectual property, labor, and environmental standards.

### **Policy Initiatives**
1. **Energy Independence:**
- Supported legislation and policies that expanded oil, gas, and coal production.
- Rolled back environmental regulations to bolster domestic energy production.

2. **Military Funding:**
- Approved significant increases in defense spending, rebuilding military capabilities.
- Established the U.S. Space Force as a new branch of the military.

3. **Immigration Policies:**
- Funded border wall construction along the U.S.-Mexico border.
- Passed laws tightening immigration policies and enhancing enforcement.

Lol. If by conservative you mean populist, then maybe.

Trumps platform =/= conservative

Reducing taxes, public spending, and regulation is conservative

Im what world did trump reduce spending?

It's a primary part of his federal agenda, stop being dense.

The most dangerous deficit I see right now is the lack of brain cells among a large contingent of "republicans"

It may be part of his agenda, but the question the poster asked still stands.

I'm looking at his actions, not his words.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

I'm looking at his actions, not his words.

---

Even his words aren't conservative. He's a NY liberal, just not a progressive liberal.

I know.

Its funny to watch the magas claim the are fight on conservatives behalf when that's only moderately accurate.

jrdaustin said:

---

Red Fishing Ag93 said:

---

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

Dan Scott said:

---

This guy is becoming my favorite congressman

We got played. No Democrats voted against it. More voted for it than Republicans. pic.twitter.com/OUiEhdepLM

— Tim Burchett (@timburchett) December 20, 2024

---

Burchett is one of the good ones.

---

Agreed. Of note though, he too voted No and is complaining about all the questionalble billions of extra spending in the bill.

The people that played the R's are Johnson, Jeffries, McConnell, and Schumer.

“We” didn’t have a deal

Schumer, McConnell, Johnson & Jeffries had a deal

They didn’t bother to share it with the other 531 members of Congress until yesterday

And that deal sucked https://t.co/ZoRjHADHas

— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) December 20, 2024

---

Interesting that this was the exact same play by McConnell from the playbook that provided us with the "bipartisan" border deal, isn't it?

And look how much mileage the Dems and MSM got out of that fiasco.

McConnell cannot retire soon enough.

---

And thee other three members of what was termed "The Firm" by Senator Mike Lee that is really just running the government.

Dacoldest said:

---

Chip Roy is such a detriment to the republican platform.

A political philistine that allows Democrats to strategically out-maneuever any major conservative reform. He and his ilk are the easiest controlled opposition in the world for dems.

But he gets his viral, speech clips he and so many folks here love so much. Congrats guys!

---

Your arguments are completely illogical. That second bill was not getting past the Senate.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Im what world did trump reduce spending?

---

He reduced spending prior to COVID. Left went "Reeeee, he's hurting poor people".

That said, he could have done more and has admitted as much. See Elon and Vivek. He going to cut much more this term.

Science Denier said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Im what world did trump reduce spending?

---

He reduced spending prior to COVID. Left went "Reeeee, he's hurting poor people".

---

Reduced spending you say...

Science Denier said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Im what world did trump reduce spending?

---

He reduced spending prior to COVID. Left went "Reeeee, he's hurting poor people".

That said, he could have done more and has admitted as much. See Elon and Vivek. He going to cut much more this term.

---

Huh, your definition of "reduction" is the same as Democrat definition of it - "slightly less than it could have been if it had been increased even more". That's not what reduction means.