McCarthy loses Speaker vote 3 times…

[BugI02]

It shouldn’t be extreme to expect congress to do its job. Gaetz is right in principle but he’s too idealistic for the game being played in DC. It’s only extreme in appearance because he’s in a small minority who want congress to end the omnibus bull **** and go back to real ass budgeting.

Gaetz’s mistake is painting himself and his few allies into the image his opponent have depicted. He’s not statesman enough to pull that off. In the end he is the straw monster they’ve made of him and the omnibus fanbois are as strong as ever. He won nothing.

I thought INGO was in favor of real consequences for betraying one's oaths and constituents. We have to start somewhere, and time and circumstance don't always present the perfect opportunity - and waiting for the 'perfect' opportunity (or candidate) is just another means of surrender (See: Knee-jerk inability to vote for Trump)

 

[jamil]

I thought INGO was in favor of real consequences for betraying one's oaths and constituents. We have to start somewhere, and time and circumstance don't always present the perfect opportunity - and waiting for the 'perfect' opportunity (or candidate) is just another means of surrender (See: Knee-jerk inability to vote for Trump)

It’s not even waiting for a perfect opportunity. We can’t control that. Just don’t hand them the game.

 

[BugI02]

I love the RINO term nowadays. You can sink a prominent fundraiser, leader, and messenger with democrats at your side and call people a RINO.

You can stand with a self-centered billionaire with a questionable record on core conservative issues and call his haters RINOs.

The people who use it are the once who seem most hell bent on losing the White House in 24 and throwing any political momentum in the trash.

Gaetz and the influencer crowed need to be expelled from the party. We have too many people who have zero strategy, zero thinking, and just demands to move forward. This is how Biden can survive a terrible cycle.

That political momentum on the right you're lamenting the possible loss of is pretty much entirely due to Trump convincing average Americans of all colors that a government that cares about their concerns is not only possible but going on to deliver the closest semblance of that most have seen in their political lifetimes

Business as usual will be the death of that momentum, not finally attempting real change - successful or not

 

[BugI02]

It’s not even waiting for a perfect opportunity. We can’t control that. Just don’t hand them the game.

I see you talking but all I hear is 'Moving the US embassy to Jerusalem will set the mideast aflame!'

Playing not to lose seldom ends well. Fortune favors the bold

 

[BugI02]

Gaetz may or may not be a liability at this point but that's not really relevant to my comment. Posting an emotional outburst about expelling him from the party and then immediately following it by insinuating that no one else is capable of strategy or thinking is ironic.

I'll be the first to say Gaetz is not my choice for standard bearer, but he was first to pick up the gauntlet. Thank God at least somebody did instead of dithering and bitching about McCarthy surrendering his leverage for nothing

That's what sets people's teeth on edge, he let Biden and Schumer and McConnell of the hook in exchange for absolutely nothing

 

[BugI02]

See the "Hoosiers are fickle" comments. But. I do think Indiana is socially conservative, but it's not a populist conservatism. They're CoC loving neocons. Put a clean cut plastic baptist up saying ostensibly "reasonable" things, and he'll win in a landslide.

See: Mike Pence

 

[BugI02]

But there's a conservative version of that where principled people don't want to compromise. Being uncompromising in matters of polity, because other people get a say too, unless you can somehow impose your will on the majority, that's really no different from activism.

I'll compromise with them the way Grant did, by offering generous terms after the m*********ers are completely destroyed

 

[jamil]

I'll compromise with them the way Grant did, by offering generous terms after the m*********ers are completely destroyed

Like I said before. I don't think we can vote our way out of it. Well, unless populist candidates can articulate a better message and say it louder than the people calling them fascists. First, they have to convince people that they're actually the good guys. Short of that, I guess wait for the revolution of the pregnant men to start.

 

[BugI02]

This is my disconnect. The least-bad option may or may not meet my threshold of acceptable.

Lets say I have a bright line issue. It's up or down, I don't support it. We will call it detestable issue x. If there's a dude advocating for the wholesale acceptance of detestable issue x, and another guy saying he only supports the implementation of detestable issue x/2, I am under zero obligation to support x/2 guy just because hes the best available candidate. He still supports the detestable issue.

You claim that my failure to support x/2 is equivalent to supporting x just because x/2 ended up losing. That is incorrect. I didn't support the issue at all. The outcome is NOT my responsibility, it is the responsibility of those that supported x.

X/2 doesn't reverse the course. X/2 doesn't stop the train. X/2 slow-walks the path to the same end. If you are scared of that outcome, and you prefer to punt, then slowing it down makes sense. If you prefer to establish boundaries and then stick to your scruples, you will find a sense of freedom that is impossible to achieve with unlimited compromise.

Fact of the matter, Ingomike, is that you probably have a bright line as well. It's just a lot further down the list than the others you ridicule. Eternal compromise is a spineless endeavor.

I don't really disagree, but I would point out that in wringing all support out of your party for 'detestable issue x' your party could spend 40 years (or more) wandering in the wilderness - and there is no guarantee that whatever unifying ideas brings about a return to power will not be worse

See: National Socialism, Bolshevism, Marxism, Fascism etc

 

[jamil]

See: Mike Pence

That's exactly who was in my minds eye when I wrote that. But could be Young. Or Holcomb.

 

[jamil]

I see you talking but all I hear is 'Moving the US embassy to Jerusalem will set the mideast aflame!'

Playing not to lose seldom ends well. Fortune favors the bold

They make hearing aids for that.

It's not even playing not to lose. I don't think the US embassy in Jerusalem is a good example. I don't really see why that was even a thing even to be sought. Who gives a **** where it is? Or, I dunno, Maybe there's a strategic need for it to be there. Maybe it's safer? Better real estate value? I really don't see a win otherwise, except evangelicals get to talk about their pet prophecies being fulfilled.

Recognize what you have the means to do, and if you take chances, make sure the prize was worth winning. Okay so McCarthy isn't the speaker now. Okay. Who's the next RINO in line for that seat?

 

[BugI02]

Like I said before. I don't think we can vote our way out of it. Well, unless populist candidates can articulate a better message and say it louder than the people calling them fascists. First, they have to convince people that they're actually the good guys. Short of that, I guess wait for the revolution of the pregnant men to start.

Well, it has always been said that you can vote your way into communism, but ...

 

[BugI02]

They make hearing aids for that.

It's not even playing not to lose. I don't think the US embassy in Jerusalem is a good example. I don't really see why that was even a thing even to be sought. Who gives a **** where it is? Or, I dunno, Maybe there's a strategic need for it to be there. Maybe it's safer? Better real estate value? I really don't see a win otherwise, except evangelicals get to talk about their pet prophecies being fulfilled.

Don't play dumb. The payoff was demonstrating overt US support for Israel with Jerusalem as its capitol

The cost was ... shall we say ... a bit less than those who did not want that promise fulfilled were hyping it to be. Same thing with the take-down of McCarthy

Recognize what you have the means to do, and if you take chances, make sure the prize was worth winning. Okay so McCarthy isn't the speaker now. Okay. Who's the next RINO in line for that seat?

My somewhat realistic hope is that it will be Scalise when the dust settles. Being nearly killed by a zombie created and programmed by the other side tends to focus the mind on what matters most - and he is a skilled politician

 

[jamil]

That political momentum on the right you're lamenting the possible loss of is pretty much entirely due to Trump convincing average Americans of all colors that a government that cares about their concerns is not only possible but going on to deliver the closest semblance of that most have seen in their political lifetimes

Business as usual will be the death of that momentum, not finally attempting real change - successful or not

I think Trump has not articulated that message enough. I'm not gonna disparage him for not being able to effectively deal with the media noise. But that's what has to happen.

And as this relates to Gaetz, the populists can't allow themselves to be portrayed as just the party of nope. It has to be the party of, "not that, this," and have something to show. What will people gain if we do it the populist way? What is populism?

People are being told it's the path to Hitler. In reality, it's more like what you said. It's trying to deliver a government of, by and for the people. That's essentially what populism is. It's the fulfillment of the promised constitutional republic.

In contrast, elitism is not that. It's Oligarchic. It's not representative. It's not democratic. It's the rule of the few over the many. But TPTB have retconned it to make them the good guys and populists the bad guys.

 

[BugI02]

Nothing will ever advance without compromise. Nothing.

Rome did not compromise with Carthage, and outlasted them by over 600 years

 

[BugI02]

It will never happen. I posted this previously. Unless the GOP conference wants to change the rules, Trump cannot occupy a Republican leadership role while under indictment.

Even if Trump had full Republican support in the House, Rule 26 of the GOP Conference states, "A member of the Republican Leadership shall step aside if indicted for a felony for which a sentence of two or more years imprisonment may be imposed."

Hey, there was a rule saying DeSantis couldn't remain governor and simultaneously run for president, and that got 'fixed'

Where there's a will there's a way

 

[jamil]

Don't play dumb. The payoff was demonstrating overt US support for Israel with Jerusalem as its capitol

Spoken like a neocon. It's controversial over there. I think only the religious Jews wanted it moved. I don't think the secular Jews really give a flying ****.

The cost was ... shall we say ... a bit less than those who did not want that promise fulfilled were hyping it to be. Same thing with the take-down of McCarthy

My somewhat realistic hope is that it will be Scalise when the dust settles. Being nearly killed by a zombie created and programmed by the other side tends to focus the mind on what matters most - and he is a skilled politician

Scalise reminds me of Dan Coats. Talks a good game. Makes plastic baptists vote for him in droves. But when it comes down to it he will be loyal to the establishment.

 

[BugI02]

The thing is, compromise exists within a spectrum.

Now you've done it! jamil is all sticky and will need a break to clean up

 

[jamil]

Rome did not compromise with Carthage, and outlasted them by over 600 years

That's not even anything near the same dynamic. We're talking about a representative republic where the people are supposed to have a say through their representatives (notwithstanding that's fantasy). But in congress, every member gets a vote. And everyone has pretty much has a faction. And every faction has their own goals.

If your faction does not have a majority, they will need to ally with other factions to get at least some part of their goals fulfilled. They can't just stomp their feet and hold their breath until they get their way.

So who can the populists ally with to get some of their goals achieved, and what do they have to give up to get that?

 

[jamil]

Hey, there was a rule saying DeSantis couldn't remain governor and simultaneously run for president, and that got 'fixed'

Where there's a will there's a way

DeSantis had allies in their legislature and they changed the law. You think there's a snowball's chance in hell any neocons will try to help Trump?