You’re all set, the GOP has the house

[Pete F.]

Spineless Kevin McCarthy just said he will “look at” bringing a vote to expunge Trump’s impeachment.

In case you were wondering who owns him.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Spineless Kevin McCarthy just said he will “look at” bringing a vote to expunge Trump’s impeachment.

In case you were wondering who owns him.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Facts can’t be erased like pencil marks. Nor can facts magically disappear.

But the Cult will try as hard as they can to re write History

[wdmso]

A group of Republican state legislators in Wyoming have proposed a ban on electric vehicles in the state until 2035 in an attempt to protect the oil and gas industries.

Like I’ve said the party that only looks backwards
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Jordan: House Subpanel to Probe Treatment of Jan. 6 Defendants

More maga conspiracy omg criminals treated like criminals
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Kevin McCarthy
“ House Republicans are on a mission to end wasteful Washington spending.

From now on, if a federal bureaucrat wants to spend it, they have to come before us to defend it.”

For context, roughly 25% of our total national debt incurred over the last 230 years actually occurred during the 4 years of the Trump administration. That's right. 25% of our entire national debt, all during the Trump years.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Kevin McCarthy
“ House Republicans are on a mission to end wasteful Washington spending.

From now on, if a federal bureaucrat wants to spend it, they have to come before us to defend it.”

For context, roughly 25% of our total national debt incurred over the last 230 years actually occurred during the 4 years of the Trump administration. That's right. 25% of our entire national debt, all during the Trump years.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Now wait, Jim claims he despises Trump the man, but loves his policies, so he loves the decisions resulting in that bump in debt?

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Now wait, Jim claims he despises Trump the man, but loves his policies, so he loves the decisions resulting in that bump in debt?

Also the debt ceiling was raised 3 times while Trump was in office

Saw this

New species discovered: Republicans who (sometimes) care about deficits

Breaking scientific news: Researchers have identified a previously unknown species in D.C. Like cicadas, this species stays underground for years at a time, typically in four- or eight-year intervals. Its members hide away until there is an auspicious change in the ecosystem. Then, they bust out and wreak havoc.
This species: Republicans who care about deficits.

From 2017 through early 2021, members of the species lay dormant. Coincidentally, though, a nearly identical-looking sister species, Republicans who love debt, ruled Capitol Hill in their stead. With unified control of the House, Senate and White House, these debt-loving Republicans gleefully spilled red ink across the nation’s capital and beyond.
The GOP’s budgetary bloodletting began with a 2017 tax cut that cost $1.8 trillion. Their fiscal rampage then continued over the next few years, mostly on the other side of the ledger. In fact, between 2017 and early 2020, President Donald Trump added roughly as much to deficits through new spending as through tax cuts, appending his signature to more than $2 trillion in unfunded spending program expansions, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

During all that time, there was rarely a peep from the right side of the aisle about deficit concerns. The debt limit — the statutory ceiling on how much the federal government can borrow to pay off its existing bills — was raised several times with little fuss, and no conditions. No one tried to hold it hostage.

Then, the ecosystem changed. Specifically: A Democrat reentered the White House


No one’s is shocked and its not usual the GOP and their supporters suffer from amnesia

[PaulS]

Interesting article:

In his paper “Public Opinion Roots of Election Denialism,” published on Jan. 6, the second anniversary of the storming of the Capitol, Charles Stewart III, a political scientist at M.I.T., argues that “among Republicans, conspiracism has a potent effect on embracing election denialism, followed by racial resentment.”

According to Stewart’s calculations, “a Republican at the 10th percentile of the conspiracism scale has a 55.7 percent probability of embracing election denialism, compared to a Republican at the 90th percentile, at 86.6 percent, over 30 points higher. A Republican at the 10th percentile on the racial resentment scale has a 59.4 percent probability of embracing denialism, compared to 83.2 percent for a Republican at the 90th percentile on the same scale.”

In other words, the two most powerful factors driving Republicans who continue to believe that Trump actually won the 2020 election are receptivity to conspiracy thinking and racial resentment.

“The most confirmed Republican denialists,” Stewart writes, “believe that large malevolent forces are at work in world events, racial minorities are given too much deference in society and America’s destiny is a Christian one.”

Along parallel lines, Neil Siegel, a law professor at Duke, argues in his 2021 article “The Trump Presidency, Racial Realignment and the Future of Constitutional Norms,” that Donald Trump “is more of an effect than a cause of larger racial and cultural changes in American society that are causing Republican voters and politicians to perceive an existential threat to their continued political and cultural power — and, relatedly, to deny the legitimacy of their political opponents.”

In this climate, Siegel continues, “It is very unlikely that Republican politicians will respect constitutional norms when they deem so much to be at stake in each election and significant governmental decision.”

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Interesting article:

In his paper “Public Opinion Roots of Election Denialism,” published on Jan. 6, the second anniversary of the storming of the Capitol, Charles Stewart III, a political scientist at M.I.T., argues that “among Republicans, conspiracism has a potent effect on embracing election denialism, followed by racial resentment.”

According to Stewart’s calculations, “a Republican at the 10th percentile of the conspiracism scale has a 55.7 percent probability of embracing election denialism, compared to a Republican at the 90th percentile, at 86.6 percent, over 30 points higher. A Republican at the 10th percentile on the racial resentment scale has a 59.4 percent probability of embracing denialism, compared to 83.2 percent for a Republican at the 90th percentile on the same scale.”

In other words, the two most powerful factors driving Republicans who continue to believe that Trump actually won the 2020 election are receptivity to conspiracy thinking and racial resentment.

“The most confirmed Republican denialists,” Stewart writes, “believe that large malevolent forces are at work in world events, racial minorities are given too much deference in society and America’s destiny is a Christian one.”

Along parallel lines, Neil Siegel, a law professor at Duke, argues in his 2021 article “The Trump Presidency, Racial Realignment and the Future of Constitutional Norms,” that Donald Trump “is more of an effect than a cause of larger racial and cultural changes in American society that are causing Republican voters and politicians to perceive an existential threat to their continued political and cultural power — and, relatedly, to deny the legitimacy of their political opponents.”

In this climate, Siegel continues, “It is very unlikely that Republican politicians will respect constitutional norms when they deem so much to be at stake in each election and significant governmental decision.”

The current democratic leader in the house, Hakeem Jeffries, repeatedly denied that Trump won in 2016. That didn't stop democrats from making him house minority leader. Doesn't that suggest that your side doesn't actually care about election deniers?

The guys you cite here, interestingly, have absolutely zero to say about that. Same with Stacey Abrams' moronic, self-serving claims. Because it's only concerning when Republicans do it.

"“It is very unlikely that Republican politicians will respect constitutional norms "

This must explain why red states are rounding up all their political opponents and killing them.

During the pandemic, blue states ordered churches to be closed and allowed anti-police rallies to continue.

For every single example you want to cite of a republican trampling on a generally-accepted constitutional norm, I can cite an example of a democrat doing the same thing. But again, as always, it's only worrisome when republicans do it.

Yes, liberal democrats are much more likely to abide by what the constitution says, than republicans. Republicans are motivated by denying all elections we lose, and by racism. That's it.

the nice thing about truly demonizing your opposition, is that when you occasionally lose elections, you can always blame the other side. Nothing is ever your fault when the other side are a bunch of deplorable, racist, hate mongering barbarians. as long as you oppose them, you must be on the correct side of every single
issue.

That’s a lot easier than explaining why tax and spend economics like we enjoy here in CT is good policy, easier than defending the idea that living babies post birth, still are not human beings. Easier than explaining why it’s not discriminatory to have higher admissions standards for Asian Americans at Ivy League colleges. Easier than explaining why there’s no downside to letting men share bathrooms and locker rooms with girls. Easier than defending the brilliant idea that the solution to crime, is less police. Just smear the other side rather than defending your own platform. Makes life a lot easier.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The current democratic leader in the house, Hakeem Jeffries, repeatedly denied that Trump won in 2016. That didn't stop democrats from making him house minority leader. Doesn't that suggest that your side doesn't actually care about election deniers?

The guys you cite here, interestingly, have absolutely zero to say about that. Same with Stacey Abrams' moronic, self-serving claims. Because it's only concerning when Republicans do it.

"“It is very unlikely that Republican politicians will respect constitutional norms "

This must explain why red states are rounding up all their political opponents and killing them.

During the pandemic, blue states ordered churches to be closed and allowed anti-police rallies to continue.

For every single example you want to cite of a republican trampling on a generally-accepted constitutional norm, I can cite an example of a democrat doing the same thing. But again, as always, it's only worrisome when republicans do it.

Yes, liberal democrats are much more likely to abide by what the constitution says, than republicans. Republicans are motivated by denying all elections we lose, and by racism. That's it.

Jim have you ever looked at a picture of Republicans?

ELAINE CHAO GOES AFTER TRUMP’S COVID FAILURES, SAYING THAT HAD HE FOCUSSED ON VACCINATIONS RATHER THAN “KIM JONG’S SCHLONG” MAYBE A MILLION AMERICANS WOULD NOT HAVE DIED.

None of the people you cite called for their supporters to storm the Capitol, Donald Trump refused to accept no for an answer from the American people.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The current democratic leader in the house, Hakeem Jeffries, repeatedly denied that Trump won in 2016. That didn't stop democrats from making him house minority leader. Doesn't that suggest that your side doesn't actually care about election deniers?

The guys you cite here, interestingly, have absolutely zero to say about that. Same with Stacey Abrams' moronic, self-serving claims. Because it's only concerning when Republicans do it.

What exactly did Jeffries do?

He sent out tweets, is there anything else that threatened democracy in our country that he did?

Who is Stacey Abrams and what exactly did she do?

[Got Stripers]

Hey Jim is running out of hits, this has potential to get enough play to make it to the play list.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

For every single example you want to cite of a republican trampling on a generally-accepted constitutional norm, I can cite an example of a democrat doing the same thing. But again, as always, it's only worrisome when republicans do it.

Ok. 2 easy ones to start

What D. Pres. denied the election results and lead an insurrection?
Pls. show me a list of 147 Ds. who failed to certify a presidential election?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Ok. 2 easy ones to start

What D. Pres. denied the election results and lead an insurrection?
Pls. show me a list of 147 Ds. who failed to certify a presidential election?

paul, hers another easy one.

republicans want to ignore race because ones race doesn’t say anything about them. no more than one height says anything about them.

democrats are obsessed with it.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

paul, hers another easy one.

republicans want to ignore race because ones race doesn’t say anything about them. no more than one height says anything about them.

democrats are obsessed with it.

Oh now that's a funny post.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Ok. 2 easy ones to start

What D. Pres. denied the election results and lead an insurrection?
Pls. show me a list of 147 Ds. who failed to certify a presidential election?

oh, i see! So it’s only bad when presidents deny an election result! but it’s ok when congressional leaders and gubernatorial candidates do so!

and when a small number of congressional democrats tried to overturn trumps 2016 win, that was meaningless, because there weren’t 147 of them!

the only conceivable logic, is that you don’t care when democrats do it, and care deeply when republicans do it.

tell us paul, how many prominent members of a party can deny an election they lost, before it’s an issue with you? And how did you arrive at that number?

Same as the number of times it’s ok to put kids in cages, the number of lies it’s ok to tell..

it’s always ok when democrats do it!!!

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

paul, hers another easy one.

republicans want to ignore race because ones race doesn’t say anything about them. no more than one height says anything about them.

democrats are obsessed with it.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

oh, i see! So it’s only bad when presidents deny an election result! but it’s ok when congressional leaders and gubernatorial candidates do so!but you said "For every single example you want to cite of a republican trampling on a generally-accepted constitutional norm, I can cite an example of a democrat doing the same thing"

and when a small number of congressional democrats tried to overturn trumps 2016 win, that was meaningless, because there weren’t 147 of them!

the only conceivable logic, is that you don’t care when democrats do it, and care deeply when republicans do it.

2 dodges.

Going for a bike ride.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

2 dodges.

Going for a bike ride.

Zero dodges. No 2 events are identical. I can point to many prominent democrats who deny elections, but you (like wayne) will focus on details. If the democrat does something on a tuesday, you can't compare it to a republican who does something on a wednesday, things like that.

You all get worked up about republicans who denied the 2020 election (which I also find troubling and embarassing). But none of you care that democrats denied the election is 2016, and a small number tried overturn it.

I said I could point to democrats doing the same thing, i didn't say democrats who are identical to the republican you bring up,

While you're on your ride, try to come up with a defensible number for how many people must deny an election before you start to give a crap.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Zero dodges. No 2 events are identical. I can point to many prominent democrats who deny elections, but you (like wayne) will focus on details. If the democrat does something on a tuesday, you can't compare it to a republican who does something on a wednesday, things like that.Right Jeffries tweeting something is the same as 147 Rs refusing to certify an election.

You all get worked up about republicans who denied the 2020 election (which I also find troubling and embarassing). But none of you care that democrats denied the election is 2016, and a small number tried overturn it.

I said I could point to democrats doing the same thing, i didn't say democrats who are identical to the republican you bring up,

While you're on your ride, try to come up with a defensible number for how many people must deny an election before you start to give a crap.

For every single example you want to cite of a republican trampling on a generally-accepted constitutional norm, I can cite an example of a democrat doing the same thing.

There is your statement yet you didn't do that.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

paul, hers another easy one.

republicans want to ignore race because ones race doesn’t say anything about them. no more than one height says anything about them.

democrats are obsessed with it.

As I said you obviously have never seen a picture of Republicans.

If being short doesn’t matter, explain Gym Jordan.

And it’s probably a good time to remind you that another name for “Critical Race Theory” is “Actual American History”.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

And it’s probably a good time to remind you that another name for “Critical Race Theory” is “Actual American History”.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Another name for it is bull$hit.

[Pete F.]

Just remember that our nation was born in genocide when it embraced the doctrine that the original American, the Indian, was an inferior race. From the sixteenth century forward, blood flowed in battles of racial supremacy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Just remember that our nation was born in genocide when it embraced the doctrine that the original American, the Indian, was an inferior race. From the sixteenth century forward, blood flowed in battles of racial supremacy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No . . . there was a lot of genocide going on in the "original" American continents before our nation was born. As was the case in the rest of the world. Our nation evolved from all of that and has become one of the most diverse and egalitarian ones.

But you would like us to slide back into a censorial and discriminatory one.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

No . . . there was a lot of genocide going on in the "original" American continents before our nation was born. As was the case in the rest of the world. Our nation evolved from all of that and has become one of the most diverse and egalitarian ones.

But you would like us to slide back into a censorial and discriminatory one.

Relax, crappie fisherman. The migrant caravan will get here and teach your kids CRT before they take your gas stove.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Relax, crappie fisherman. The migrant caravan will get here and teach your kids CRT before they take your gas stove.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thanks for the heads up. Your lying words are golden.

[wdmso]

Our nation evolved from all of that and has become one of the most diverse and egalitarian ones.

And that upsets conservatives all over the United States and the globe

Who yearn for the days of good old colonialism. Where non Christians whites new their place in the world order
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Our nation evolved from all of that and has become one of the most diverse and egalitarian ones.

True

And that upsets conservatives all over the United States

Not true

and the globe

Globalism is bad . . . eff globalism.

Who yearn for the days of good old colonialism. Where non Christians whites new their place in the world order
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who yearn? Yeah, some like PeteF and BLM and CRT want to put whites in their place . . . and that "world order" thingy . . . that's kinda that neo-leftist, Progressive, centralized, global governance that puts everone in their equally insignifcant place.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Who yearn? Yeah, some like PeteF and BLM and CRT want to put whites in their place . . . and that "world order" thingy . . . that's kinda that neo-leftist, Progressive, centralized, global governance that puts everone in their equally insignifcant place.

Rule no. 1: MAGAs are always the victims. Everything is unfair to them
Rule no. 2: The person responsible for the unfair treatment of MAGAs is never a white man. Except for Joe Biden who’s secretly controlled by a Jewish billionaire, China, or a black man
Rule no. 3: Refer to 1&2
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Rule no. 1: MAGAs are always the victims. Everything is unfair to them
Rule no. 2: The person responsible for the unfair treatment of MAGAs is never a white man. Except for Joe Biden who’s secretly controlled by a Jewish billionaire, China, or a black man
Rule no. 3: Refer to 1&2
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Some pretty good rules.

[Pete F.]

Typical House Republican learning of George Santos's past:

"Bit of a grifter? Who isn't?"

"Resume padder? Who doesn't?"

"Fake college degrees? Who cares?"

"Sudden riches from dubious sources? Good for him!"

"Ex-drag performer? WHAAATTT? Corrupting the youth! Get rid of him!"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device