(10-18-2023, 09:24 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (10-18-2023, 06:53 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Yes. I'm just misinterpreting what he said. Jk. I'm not you. I don't have that problem.
I happen to share Gaetz view that McCarthy isn't a strong enough leader, and it shows. You always try to make false equivalencies. What is Rutherford saying he specifically dislikes about Jordan?
You think Gaetz's actions were justified because McCarthy was not a strong leader. OK. Suppose I find a quote of Rutherford saying Jordan is not a strong leader? I mean it shows, right? Scoreboard! The guy lost two votes, right? If I found a quote of Rutherford saying "Jordan is not a strong leader and it shows", you would agree that's a real equivalency, right?
The fundamental rule of American politics is be careful what you do, anything you do will be done back to you by people with the opposite opinion. Have you forgotten? Usually we have to wait 2 to 8 years for the blowback, but Gaetz proceeded with no plan at all so he gets his right away.
You ask the dumbest rhetorical questions. No. I haven't forgotten. I don't care. I think this is a precedent that SHOULD be set. If you make a deal with the Speaker of the House that you believe to be in the best interests of your constituents, then he backs down, you vote him out. It was a breach of contract. Furthermore, I DON'T think someone should be elected Speaker of the House just because they have seniority. It's every representative's job to hold other politicians' feet to the fire that they do what they say they are going to do. That's called integrity. As of this moment, you have yet to show me what problems Rutherford has with Jim Jordan. It seems like he's just mad at Gaetz, based on what HE'S said. I don't have time for these entrenched Republicans that talk out of one side of their mouths about addressing our needs, while simultaneously trying to play ball with Democrats. This naive believe that Democrats are faithful actors has done nothing but put Americans in a worse spot.
(10-18-2023, 09:36 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (10-18-2023, 06:33 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]He said he wouldn't back anyone Gaetz backs. So he won't vote for Peterson who has Gaetz's vote. It's not difficult to understand.
Even a caveman could understand it.
Except they both voted for Scalise.
Who's the caveman now?
This is not the defense you think it is.
(10-17-2023, 04:23 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Well, I called Rutherford's Jacksonville office. I won't vote for that dude again if he won't play ball. I think everyone needs to be calling. Not that it matters at this point. Republicans are soft.
(10-17-2023, 04:27 PM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ] (10-17-2023, 04:23 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Well, I called Rutherford's Jacksonville office. I won't vote for that dude again if he won't play ball. I think everyone needs to be calling. Not that it matters at this point. Republicans are soft.
I called.. And I wasn't polite.
You should tell him to leave the Main Street Republicans (the funding group is still around). They are the ones who are mostly holding out. These are all moderates, although Rutherford claimed to love Trump and supported his policies. He seems to have gone full rino, probably hanging out at the capital grill with the other scum getting their wheels greased by the lobbyists.
He also has paid a lot of fines for violations of the trade reporting requirements. He claims his IRA manager was making the trades that were over $500,000 and he didn't know to report it. I wonder how many people still have IRA managers actually making huge volume trades?
My rep is probably right there with Rutherford but he wised up after supporting McCarthy. Publicly he is voting for Jordan but I doubt he wants him to win.
I don't fully support Jordan but anyone at this point who doesn't vote for him needs to be primaried unless they say they are voting to stop a speaker from being selected. All the people want him and their job is to represent the people. I would fully support having no speaker for the rest of the year though.
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
I don’t know how Jordan can win. This is quite remarkable that it’s taking this long to select.
(10-18-2023, 11:32 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (10-18-2023, 09:24 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You think Gaetz's actions were justified because McCarthy was not a strong leader. OK. Suppose I find a quote of Rutherford saying Jordan is not a strong leader? I mean it shows, right? Scoreboard! The guy lost two votes, right? If I found a quote of Rutherford saying "Jordan is not a strong leader and it shows", you would agree that's a real equivalency, right?
The fundamental rule of American politics is be careful what you do, anything you do will be done back to you by people with the opposite opinion. Have you forgotten? Usually we have to wait 2 to 8 years for the blowback, but Gaetz proceeded with no plan at all so he gets his right away.
You ask the dumbest rhetorical questions. No. I haven't forgotten. I don't care. I think this is a precedent that SHOULD be set. If you make a deal with the Speaker of the House that you believe to be in the best interests of your constituents, then he backs down, you vote him out. It was a breach of contract. Furthermore, I DON'T think someone should be elected Speaker of the House just because they have seniority. It's every representative's job to hold other politicians' feet to the fire that they do what they say they are going to do. That's called integrity. As of this moment, you have yet to show me what problems Rutherford has with Jim Jordan. It seems like he's just mad at Gaetz, based on what HE'S said. I don't have time for these entrenched Republicans that talk out of one side of their mouths about addressing our needs, while simultaneously trying to play ball with Democrats. This naive believe that Democrats are faithful actors has done nothing but put Americans in a worse spot.
I'm just bouncing back to you what you told me. You said, roughly, "Gaetz says McCarthy is not a strong leader so that's a good reason not to vote for him". That's not how this works! That's dumb! Think about it, if someone sues me, and I appear in court, can I tell the judge, "your honor, the plaintiff is not a strong leader. Please dismiss the case." Or if I'm in a court martial for insubordination, do I get to say, "I didn't think my CO was a strong leader.". If I'm an offensive tackle who missed his block, do I get to say, "The QB was not a strong leader so I missed my block on purpose."
Of course not. Now you may say, those are all adversarial situations and Congress is supposed to be cooperative and co-equal. I agree! It's supposed to be. But it's not. Hasn't been in a long time. It's partisan combat now. It is every bit as adversarial as a football game. If you want it to be more like deals made among equals, you have to invite all members to that, not just Republicans. But if you want to treat all Democrats as the enemy, you need the discipline of war and Gaetz broke that.
(10-19-2023, 01:32 AM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ] (10-17-2023, 04:23 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Well, I called Rutherford's Jacksonville office. I won't vote for that dude again if he won't play ball. I think everyone needs to be calling. Not that it matters at this point. Republicans are soft.
(10-17-2023, 04:27 PM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]I called.. And I wasn't polite.
You should tell him to leave the Main Street Republicans (the funding group is still around). They are the ones who are mostly holding out. These are all moderates, although Rutherford claimed to love Trump and supported his policies. He seems to have gone full rino, probably hanging out at the capital grill with the other scum getting their wheels greased by the lobbyists.
He also has paid a lot of fines for violations of the trade reporting requirements. He claims his IRA manager was making the trades that were over $500,000 and he didn't know to report it. I wonder how many people still have IRA managers actually making huge volume trades?
My rep is probably right there with Rutherford but he wised up after supporting McCarthy. Publicly he is voting for Jordan but I doubt he wants him to win.
I don't fully support Jordan but anyone at this point who doesn't vote for him needs to be primaried unless they say they are voting to stop a speaker from being selected. All the people want him and their job is to represent the people. I would fully support having no speaker for the rest of the year though.
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
Jordan gets the supporters he deserves, at least.
(10-19-2023, 07:13 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (10-18-2023, 11:32 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]You ask the dumbest rhetorical questions. No. I haven't forgotten. I don't care. I think this is a precedent that SHOULD be set. If you make a deal with the Speaker of the House that you believe to be in the best interests of your constituents, then he backs down, you vote him out. It was a breach of contract. Furthermore, I DON'T think someone should be elected Speaker of the House just because they have seniority. It's every representative's job to hold other politicians' feet to the fire that they do what they say they are going to do. That's called integrity. As of this moment, you have yet to show me what problems Rutherford has with Jim Jordan. It seems like he's just mad at Gaetz, based on what HE'S said. I don't have time for these entrenched Republicans that talk out of one side of their mouths about addressing our needs, while simultaneously trying to play ball with Democrats. This naive believe that Democrats are faithful actors has done nothing but put Americans in a worse spot.
I'm just bouncing back to you what you told me. You said, roughly, "Gaetz says McCarthy is not a strong leader so that's a good reason not to vote for him". That's not how this works! That's dumb! Think about it, if someone sues me, and I appear in court, can I tell the judge, "your honor, the plaintiff is not a strong leader. Please dismiss the case." Or if I'm in a court martial for insubordination, do I get to say, "I didn't think my CO was a strong leader.". If I'm an offensive tackle who missed his block, do I get to say, "The QB was not a strong leader so I missed my block on purpose."
Of course not. Now you may say, those are all adversarial situations and Congress is supposed to be cooperative and co-equal. I agree! It's supposed to be. But it's not. Hasn't been in a long time. It's partisan combat now. It is every bit as adversarial as a football game. If you want it to be more like deals made among equals, you have to invite all members to that, not just Republicans. But if you want to treat all Democrats as the enemy, you need the discipline of war and Gaetz broke that.
(10-19-2023, 01:32 AM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]You should tell him to leave the Main Street Republicans (the funding group is still around). They are the ones who are mostly holding out. These are all moderates, although Rutherford claimed to love Trump and supported his policies. He seems to have gone full rino, probably hanging out at the capital grill with the other scum getting their wheels greased by the lobbyists.
He also has paid a lot of fines for violations of the trade reporting requirements. He claims his IRA manager was making the trades that were over $500,000 and he didn't know to report it. I wonder how many people still have IRA managers actually making huge volume trades?
My rep is probably right there with Rutherford but he wised up after supporting McCarthy. Publicly he is voting for Jordan but I doubt he wants him to win.
I don't fully support Jordan but anyone at this point who doesn't vote for him needs to be primaried unless they say they are voting to stop a speaker from being selected. All the people want him and their job is to represent the people. I would fully support having no speaker for the rest of the year though.
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
Jordan gets the supporters he deserves, at least.
You don't agree that the best outcome is no speaker? The government can't print more money, inflation slows down instead of increasing more, the debt increase slows down instead of increasing more, and they can't continue to screw the people.
Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk
(10-19-2023, 02:32 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ] (10-19-2023, 07:13 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I'm just bouncing back to you what you told me. You said, roughly, "Gaetz says McCarthy is not a strong leader so that's a good reason not to vote for him". That's not how this works! That's dumb! Think about it, if someone sues me, and I appear in court, can I tell the judge, "your honor, the plaintiff is not a strong leader. Please dismiss the case." Or if I'm in a court martial for insubordination, do I get to say, "I didn't think my CO was a strong leader.". If I'm an offensive tackle who missed his block, do I get to say, "The QB was not a strong leader so I missed my block on purpose."
Of course not. Now you may say, those are all adversarial situations and Congress is supposed to be cooperative and co-equal. I agree! It's supposed to be. But it's not. Hasn't been in a long time. It's partisan combat now. It is every bit as adversarial as a football game. If you want it to be more like deals made among equals, you have to invite all members to that, not just Republicans. But if you want to treat all Democrats as the enemy, you need the discipline of war and Gaetz broke that.
Jordan gets the supporters he deserves, at least.
You don't agree that the best outcome is no speaker? The government can't print more money, inflation slows down instead of increasing more, the debt increase slows down instead of increasing more, and they can't continue to screw the people.
Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk
Bingo.. As I quoted a post earlier, this is bigger than Jordan..
(10-19-2023, 02:32 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ] (10-19-2023, 07:13 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I'm just bouncing back to you what you told me. You said, roughly, "Gaetz says McCarthy is not a strong leader so that's a good reason not to vote for him". That's not how this works! That's dumb! Think about it, if someone sues me, and I appear in court, can I tell the judge, "your honor, the plaintiff is not a strong leader. Please dismiss the case." Or if I'm in a court martial for insubordination, do I get to say, "I didn't think my CO was a strong leader.". If I'm an offensive tackle who missed his block, do I get to say, "The QB was not a strong leader so I missed my block on purpose."
Of course not. Now you may say, those are all adversarial situations and Congress is supposed to be cooperative and co-equal. I agree! It's supposed to be. But it's not. Hasn't been in a long time. It's partisan combat now. It is every bit as adversarial as a football game. If you want it to be more like deals made among equals, you have to invite all members to that, not just Republicans. But if you want to treat all Democrats as the enemy, you need the discipline of war and Gaetz broke that.
Jordan gets the supporters he deserves, at least.
You don't agree that the best outcome is no speaker? The government can't print more money, inflation slows down instead of increasing more, the debt increase slows down instead of increasing more, and they can't continue to screw the people.
Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk
You're right that a shutdown is not a big deal. And you're right that a shutdown will reduce spending. However we are in the minority in that opinion, and voters will punish Republicans if there is a shutdown.
And with the wars going on it is important to keep funding the good guys.
The current congress isn't facing a debt ceiling deadline but it will hit the next one like a wall of bricks.
(10-19-2023, 07:13 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (10-18-2023, 11:32 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]You ask the dumbest rhetorical questions. No. I haven't forgotten. I don't care. I think this is a precedent that SHOULD be set. If you make a deal with the Speaker of the House that you believe to be in the best interests of your constituents, then he backs down, you vote him out. It was a breach of contract. Furthermore, I DON'T think someone should be elected Speaker of the House just because they have seniority. It's every representative's job to hold other politicians' feet to the fire that they do what they say they are going to do. That's called integrity. As of this moment, you have yet to show me what problems Rutherford has with Jim Jordan. It seems like he's just mad at Gaetz, based on what HE'S said. I don't have time for these entrenched Republicans that talk out of one side of their mouths about addressing our needs, while simultaneously trying to play ball with Democrats. This naive believe that Democrats are faithful actors has done nothing but put Americans in a worse spot.
I'm just bouncing back to you what you told me. You said, roughly, "Gaetz says McCarthy is not a strong leader so that's a good reason not to vote for him". That's not how this works! That's dumb! Think about it, if someone sues me, and I appear in court, can I tell the judge, "your honor, the plaintiff is not a strong leader. Please dismiss the case." Or if I'm in a court martial for insubordination, do I get to say, "I didn't think my CO was a strong leader.". If I'm an offensive tackle who missed his block, do I get to say, "The QB was not a strong leader so I missed my block on purpose."
Of course not. Now you may say, those are all adversarial situations and Congress is supposed to be cooperative and co-equal. I agree! It's supposed to be. But it's not. Hasn't been in a long time. It's partisan combat now. It is every bit as adversarial as a football game. If you want it to be more like deals made among equals, you have to invite all members to that, not just Republicans. But if you want to treat all Democrats as the enemy, you need the discipline of war and Gaetz broke that.
What the [BLEEP] are you going on about here? I am going to ignore 90% of that nonsensical post because you seem incapable of comparing apples to apples. Get back to me after you've read up on false equivalences and corrected yourself.
I share the view that some Republicans that they do not push back hard enough against the establishment. This was Gaetz concern about McCarthy. McCarthy made concessions to Gaetz as a form of accountability. McCarthy didn't live up to his end of the deal. Gaetz voted him out. I don't have a problem with that. Rutherford is not giving a reason for voting against Jordan. He's not asking for any types of concessions. He's propping up and supporting a group of establishment hacks that don't seem to be doing anything for us. [BLEEP] that. Unless he has a reason that he can explain to me why he won't vote for Jordan (other than his idiotic statement that he won't support anyone championed by Gaetz), then I won't vote for the dude. It's that simple. We don't need to do Mikesez upside down and backwards logic to get there, either.
(10-19-2023, 04:20 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (10-19-2023, 07:13 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I'm just bouncing back to you what you told me. You said, roughly, "Gaetz says McCarthy is not a strong leader so that's a good reason not to vote for him". That's not how this works! That's dumb! Think about it, if someone sues me, and I appear in court, can I tell the judge, "your honor, the plaintiff is not a strong leader. Please dismiss the case." Or if I'm in a court martial for insubordination, do I get to say, "I didn't think my CO was a strong leader.". If I'm an offensive tackle who missed his block, do I get to say, "The QB was not a strong leader so I missed my block on purpose."
Of course not. Now you may say, those are all adversarial situations and Congress is supposed to be cooperative and co-equal. I agree! It's supposed to be. But it's not. Hasn't been in a long time. It's partisan combat now. It is every bit as adversarial as a football game. If you want it to be more like deals made among equals, you have to invite all members to that, not just Republicans. But if you want to treat all Democrats as the enemy, you need the discipline of war and Gaetz broke that.
What the [BLEEP] are you going on about here? I am going to ignore 90% of that nonsensical post because you seem incapable of comparing apples to apples. Get back to me after you've read up on false equivalences and corrected yourself.
I share the view that some Republicans that they do not push back hard enough against the establishment. This was Gaetz concern about McCarthy. McCarthy made concessions to Gaetz as a form of accountability. McCarthy didn't live up to his end of the deal. Gaetz voted him out. I don't have a problem with that. Rutherford is not giving a reason for voting against Jordan. He's not asking for any types of concessions. He's propping up and supporting a group of establishment hacks that don't seem to be doing anything for us. [BLEEP] that. Unless he has a reason that he can explain to me why he won't vote for Jordan (other than his idiotic statement that he won't support anyone championed by Gaetz), then I won't vote for the dude. It's that simple. We don't need to do Mikesez upside down and backwards logic to get there, either.
I'm not trying to get you to vote for Rutherford. I'm trying to explain to you that Rutherford's action is equally logical and ethical as Gaetz. You say this is a false equivalence, because you prefer Gaetz's "deal" and his stated reason, and you identify with Gaetz and his "non establishment" bona fides, even though the difference between "establishment" and "non establishment" has no coherent definition, and anyone could be either depending on who you're asking. So yes, to you, these equivalences are false. To a person with no dog in the race, they are true.
I'll say it directly though. No more hypotheticals. This contest is between two types of Republican. There are two ways for one of the 200+ to be considered for the job. One is to have the most donations. In that interview Americus linked us to, Austin Scott thinks it's ridiculous that anyone would go against McCarthy because McCarthy was the best fundraiser. That's gross, but hey, at least it's objective. More money is more money. It's not a subjective claim like "I'm smarter" or "people like me more." The other way is to become the darling of the talk radio / fox news people. The owners, pundits, and their viewers. If they all agree about you, that's the other path to the top of the list of 200 members. That's a bit less gross than "who got more money", sure, but this process favors bombastic and charismatic people who dumb every issue down to the point that it doesn't even relate to the written law anymore. And most Republicans don't engage with most of those RW media programs. At all. So a claim that these politicians are somehow more in touch with "the people" is suspicious at best. A certain type of mentally unstable person with few friends and little family engagement, yes. People in general, no.
Neither process is good. As more and more politicians rely on small dollar donations the two processes will converge for the Republicans, but that hasn't happened yet.
Every time I read one of your posts, I get dumber.
(10-19-2023, 05:16 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Every time I read one of your posts, I get dumber.
You are realizing what was already true about you.
Area man has opinions about which member of Congress is best. Area man is angry that other members of Congress, who have all interacted with that member personally and professionally, have a different opinion. Area man is sure he is right and they are wrong.
Missing in all of this is what difference does any of it make? "Speaker Jordan" has not said what he would do differently from "Speaker Scalise" or "Speaker McCarthy.". We just have a bunch of RWNJs who want to see the donor class lose to the 24/7 news / social media / podcast bros. As a matter of identity, not policy. Ukraine is still going to get more money. So is Israel.
![[Image: 20231019-144720.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/nLQxtXcG/20231019-144720.jpg)