Republicans Don’t Give a Damn About Americans

 

REPORT: The House could vote as soon as Tuesday night on a $40 billion package of military and humanitarian aid for Ukraine.

Trump wanted $4 billion for his Wall and the GOP couldn’t come up with it. The GOP has had massive power time and time again over the last 40 years and hasn’t secured our border. But they can get behind giving 10 times that amount to a country it isn’t in our interest to worry about.

Why don’t conservatives move as swiftly to stop the endless fentanyl killing Americans? The child molesters destroying our children? How about the murderers and gang members infesting our streets and terrorizing our communities? The GOP will win and they’ll do nothing to stop any of it but fundraise and beg for the White House. A curse on both parties. They’re all trash.

.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 347 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. DrewInWisconsin, Oik! Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik!
    @DrewInWisconsin

    BDB (View Comment):

    Painter Jean (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Locke On (View Comment):

    Pragmatically, Ukraine gets $40 billion because it has substantial support from both parties. The border doesn’t get $4 billion because the Dims will do nothing to stop the flood of aliens into our country, no matter how the Pubs vote. If that doesn’t change next January, then yes they deserve condemnation.

    We had the house and the pubs did nothing.

    Why should it be different next time?

    Still, I definitely think you and others who share your mindset should start a third party.

    Nope. I want yours.

    Ha!

    But that’s a lot of people we’re going to have to remove from office.

    • #31
  2. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Painter Jean (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Locke On (View Comment):

    Pragmatically, Ukraine gets $40 billion because it has substantial support from both parties. The border doesn’t get $4 billion because the Dims will do nothing to stop the flood of aliens into our country, no matter how the Pubs vote. If that doesn’t change next January, then yes they deserve condemnation.

    We had the house and the pubs did nothing.

    Why should it be different next time?

    Still, I definitely think you and others who share your mindset should start a third party.

    Nope. I want yours.

    Ha!

    But that’s a lot of people we’re going to have to remove from office.

    As with nearly everything, it’s actually not that big a task.  Marginal effects.  It doesn’t take an actual Moslem majority to chill freedoms — see Britain.  It doesn’t take replacement of all the bad Republicans to change the party.  We just need to wound enough of them that the rest get the new religion.

    • #32
  3. DrewInWisconsin, Oik! Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik!
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Back on topic!

    • #33
  4. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    It will be nice when the Republican Party is better — or when we don’t absolutely need them to prevent a sweeping Democratic takeover and the subsequent savaging of our institutions rendering future peaceful reform impossible.

    That’s the problem with letting the Democrats win big, even for a little bit: they would eliminate the electoral college, pack the court, federalize election law, abolish the filibuster, control our speech, etc., etc. They could actually break things sufficiently that we can’t come back from it.

    That’s why we need the Republicans — the only viable alternative — to beat them. So support the Republican candidates, even as you work to choose better and more conservative candidates to run on that ticket. There isn’t an alternative that doesn’t end in disaster.

    • #34
  5. Painter Jean Member
    Painter Jean
    @PainterJean

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    It will be nice when the Republican Party is better — or when we don’t absolutely need them to prevent a sweeping Democratic takeover and the subsequent savaging of our institutions rendering future peaceful reform impossible.

    That’s the problem with letting the Democrats win big, even for a little bit: they would eliminate the electoral college, pack the court, federalize election law, abolish the filibuster, control our speech, etc., etc. They could actually break things sufficiently that we can’t come back from it.

    That’s why we need the Republicans — the only viable alternative — to beat them. So support the Republican candidates, even as you

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    It will be nice when the Republican Party is better — or when we don’t absolutely need them to prevent a sweeping Democratic takeover and the subsequent savaging of our institutions rendering future peaceful reform impossible.

    That’s the problem with letting the Democrats win big, even for a little bit: they would eliminate the electoral college, pack the court, federalize election law, abolish the filibuster, control our speech, etc., etc. They could actually break things sufficiently that we can’t come back from it.

    That’s why we need the Republicans — the only viable alternative — to beat them. So support the Republican candidates, even as you work to choose better and more conservative candidates to run on that ticket. There isn’t an alternative that doesn’t end in disaster.

    work to choose better and more conservative candidates to run on that ticket. There isn’t an alternative that doesn’t end in disaster.

    Thank you, Henry!

    • #35
  6. Painter Jean Member
    Painter Jean
    @PainterJean

    BDB (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Painter Jean (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Locke On (View Comment):

    Pragmatically, Ukraine gets $40 billion because it has substantial support from both parties. The border doesn’t get $4 billion because the Dims will do nothing to stop the flood of aliens into our country, no matter how the Pubs vote. If that doesn’t change next January, then yes they deserve condemnation.

    We had the house and the pubs did nothing.

    Why should it be different next time?

    Still, I definitely think you and others who share your mindset should start a third party.

    Nope. I want yours.

    Ha!

    But that’s a lot of people we’re going to have to remove from office.

    As with nearly everything, it’s actually not that big a task. Marginal effects. It doesn’t take an actual Moslem majority to chill freedoms — see Britain. It doesn’t take replacement of all the bad Republicans to change the party. We just need to wound enough of them that the rest get the new religion.

    It’s revealing that you use the word “wound”, instead of, say, “persuade”. Good luck building a party that has appeal to a broad range of voters when that’s your tactic. 

    • #36
  7. Paul Stinchfield Member
    Paul Stinchfield
    @PaulStinchfield

    Doug Watt (View Comment):

    Just a friendly warning. Do not fill this thread with personal attacks.

    This is arguments. Abuse is Room 12A down the hall.

    • #37
  8. Paul Stinchfield Member
    Paul Stinchfield
    @PaulStinchfield

    Painter Jean (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Your apparent satisfaction with the status quo or at least dissatisfaction with those of us furious about it is at odds with the idea that change is supposed to come from us.

    Jean voted for the pResident in Chief, so we should definitely give her a hard time.

    Ah.

    Stina is lying. I didn’t vote for Biden, I voted for Trump.

    I hope it’s just confusion: I have trouble keeping track of the opinions of all the commenters here and at the few other fora I frequent. Sometimes I will comment and get corrected, “No, that wasn’t me, that was Mr X.”

    • #38
  9. Paul Stinchfield Member
    Paul Stinchfield
    @PaulStinchfield

    Painter Jean (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Painter Jean (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Locke On (View Comment):

    Pragmatically, Ukraine gets $40 billion because it has substantial support from both parties. The border doesn’t get $4 billion because the Dims will do nothing to stop the flood of aliens into our country, no matter how the Pubs vote. If that doesn’t change next January, then yes they deserve condemnation.

    We had the house and the pubs did nothing.

    Why should it be different next time?

    Still, I definitely think you and others who share your mindset should start a third party.

    Nope. I want yours.

    Ha!

    But that’s a lot of people we’re going to have to remove from office.

    As with nearly everything, it’s actually not that big a task. Marginal effects. It doesn’t take an actual Moslem majority to chill freedoms — see Britain. It doesn’t take replacement of all the bad Republicans to change the party. We just need to wound enough of them that the rest get the new religion.

    It’s revealing that you use the word “wound”, instead of, say, “persuade”. Good luck building a party that has appeal to a broad range of voters when that’s your tactic.

    Perhaps BDB is thinking of the Republicans who, pretending to be on our side, are in reality on the side of the big donors who profit from open borders, corrupt contracts, and so on: Perhaps he figures that they cannot be persuaded to change their minds because that’s not where they see the profit.

    • #39
  10. AMD Texas Member
    AMD Texas
    @DarinJohnson

    Bishop Wash (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):

    But supposedly she’s a nut job.

    Even a nut job can speak the truth at times

    • #40
  11. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    Painter Jean (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Painter Jean (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Locke On (View Comment):

    Pragmatically, Ukraine gets $40 billion because it has substantial support from both parties. The border doesn’t get $4 billion because the Dims will do nothing to stop the flood of aliens into our country, no matter how the Pubs vote. If that doesn’t change next January, then yes they deserve condemnation.

    We had the house and the pubs did nothing.

    Why should it be different next time?

    Still, I definitely think you and others who share your mindset should start a third party.

    Nope. I want yours.

    Ha!

    But that’s a lot of people we’re going to have to remove from office.

    As with nearly everything, it’s actually not that big a task. Marginal effects. It doesn’t take an actual Moslem majority to chill freedoms — see Britain. It doesn’t take replacement of all the bad Republicans to change the party. We just need to wound enough of them that the rest get the new religion.

    It’s revealing that you use the word “wound”, instead of, say, “persuade”. Good luck building a party that has appeal to a broad range of voters when that’s your tactic.

    You speak as if this is Day One.  How do you think I intend to persuade numbers?  By wounding individuals.  POLITICALLY of course, in case you refuse to get that point as well.

    • #41
  12. DrewInWisconsin, Oik! Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik!
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    That’s why we need the Republicans — the only viable alternative — to beat them

    Yes, I remember when the Romneyfans at Ricochet commanded us to vote for Romney because he was “the only viable alternative” to beat Obama.

    Clearly we need better alternatives.

    • #42
  13. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    That’s why we need the Republicans — the only viable alternative — to beat them

    Yes, I remember when the Romneyfans at Ricochet commanded us to vote for Romney because he was “the only viable alternative” to beat Obama.

    Clearly we need better alternatives.

    I agree with you, Drew. We need better alternatives.

    But if they don’t run as Republicans, it is a virtual certainty that they won’t win.

    So we’re left with the choice:

    Would you rather lose with the best conservative, or win with the best electable conservative? Because I really do think that those are the only plausible choices right now. And I really do think that we have to win.

    • #43
  14. DrewInWisconsin, Oik! Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik!
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    That’s why we need the Republicans — the only viable alternative — to beat them

    Yes, I remember when the Romneyfans at Ricochet commanded us to vote for Romney because he was “the only viable alternative” to beat Obama.

    Clearly we need better alternatives.

    I agree with you, Drew. We need better alternatives.

    But if they don’t run as Republicans, it is a virtual certainty that they won’t win.

    And if they try running as Republicans, but they’re not slavishly devoted to the establishment ideology, they get booted from the ballot by the old boys’ club.

     

    • #44
  15. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    That’s why we need the Republicans — the only viable alternative — to beat them

    Yes, I remember when the Romneyfans at Ricochet commanded us to vote for Romney because he was “the only viable alternative” to beat Obama.

    Clearly we need better alternatives.

    I agree with you, Drew. We need better alternatives.

    But if they don’t run as Republicans, it is a virtual certainty that they won’t win.

    And if they try running as Republicans, but they’re not slavishly devoted to the establishment ideology, they get booted from the ballot by the old boys’ club.

     

    That’s both inaccurately sweeping and pointlessly defeatist, but not without a grain of truth.

    But it doesn’t matter: however imperfect the situation, we’re still stuck with it. So we can act like rational adults, or we can act like petulant children. I think the rational, adult thing to do is pursue the best practical and achievable outcome, however frustrating our limitations.

    • #45
  16. Charlotte Member
    Charlotte
    @Charlotte

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):[Marjorie Taylor Greene’s tweet]

    Is it too much to ask that a member of the US House of Representatives learn how to use apostrophes?

    • #46
  17. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):[Marjorie Taylor Greene’s tweet]

    Is it too much to ask that a member of the US House of Representatives learn how to use apostrophes?

    It may be an autocorrect.

    While you’re about it, however, there’s also a subject/verb number mismatch.

    • #47
  18. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    That’s why we need the Republicans — the only viable alternative — to beat them

    Yes, I remember when the Romneyfans at Ricochet commanded us to vote for Romney because he was “the only viable alternative” to beat Obama.

    Clearly we need better alternatives.

    I agree with you, Drew. We need better alternatives.

    But if they don’t run as Republicans, it is a virtual certainty that they won’t win.

    And if they try running as Republicans, but they’re not slavishly devoted to the establishment ideology, they get booted from the ballot by the old boys’ club.

     

    That’s both inaccurately sweeping and pointlessly defeatist, but not without a grain of truth.

    But it doesn’t matter: however imperfect the situation, we’re still stuck with it. So we can act like rational adults, or we can act like petulant children. I think the rational, adult thing to do is pursue the best practical and achievable outcome, however frustrating our limitations.

    The basic issue is that seniority pretty much rules in Congress.  The emergence of America first/populism/whatever-you want-to-call-it may have started with Pat Buchanan, but it did not get a real foothold until the Tea Party, and did not emerge as a force until the 2016 election.

    There are lots of Congress critters that predate 2016 and even the Tea Party.  They have seniority and are from a “Republican Party” that existed under George W. Bush.  McCarthy was elected in 2007.  So they have seniority and the power of incumbency.  In short, while frustrating to many, change in the party is possible (JD Vance?) but will simply not happen all that fast

     

    • #48
  19. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    BDB (View Comment):

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):[Marjorie Taylor Greene’s tweet]

    Is it too much to ask that a member of the US House of Representatives learn how to use apostrophes?

    It may be an autocorrect.

    While you’re about it, however, there’s also a subject/verb number mismatch.

    Yes. I assume junior staffers handle social media. Twitter is a place where grammar is neither prized nor even valued.

    I was recently given a coffee mug that has printed on it “I am silently correcting your grammar.” But almost all of us make grammatical mistakes.

    I listen to a lot of podcasts by a lot of professionals, and I’m surprised how often people who write for a living make the classic subjective/objective pronoun error, almost always using “I” when “me” is correct. I hear it on the flagship podcast, at Commentary — pretty much everywhere. I get it: “I” sounds more sophisticated, and people who earn a living with words are likely to err in that direction. It’s still wrong but, again, we all make mistakes.

    • #49
  20. Painter Jean Member
    Painter Jean
    @PainterJean

    BDB (View Comment):

    Painter Jean (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Painter Jean (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Locke On (View Comment):

    Pragmatically, Ukraine gets $40 billion because it has substantial support from both parties. The border doesn’t get $4 billion because the Dims will do nothing to stop the flood of aliens into our country, no matter how the Pubs vote. If that doesn’t change next January, then yes they deserve condemnation.

    We had the house and the pubs did nothing.

    Why should it be different next time?

    Still, I definitely think you and others who share your mindset should start a third party.

    Nope. I want yours.

    Ha!

    But that’s a lot of people we’re going to have to remove from office.

    As with nearly everything, it’s actually not that big a task. Marginal effects. It doesn’t take an actual Moslem majority to chill freedoms — see Britain. It doesn’t take replacement of all the bad Republicans to change the party. We just need to wound enough of them that the rest get the new religion.

    It’s revealing that you use the word “wound”, instead of, say, “persuade”. Good luck building a party that has appeal to a broad range of voters when that’s your tactic.

    You speak as if this is Day One. How do you think I intend to persuade numbers? By wounding individuals. POLITICALLY of course, in case you refuse to get that point as well.

    Needing to politically “wound” politicians who don’t see everything as you do tells me that you don’t have an argument that persuades a majority of voters on your side. You’re the mirror image of the loud progressives on the other side of the aisle, who are loud, threatening, and who are willing to scare Democrat pols into doing their bidding, no matter how unpopular their policies may actually be. It’s easier to wound than to persuade, so I see the appeal for you.

    • #50
  21. Cassandro Coolidge
    Cassandro
    @Flicker

    BDB (View Comment):

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):[Marjorie Taylor Greene’s tweet]

    Is it too much to ask that a member of the US House of Representatives learn how to use apostrophes?

    It may be an autocorrect.

    While you’re about it, however, there’s also a subject/verb number mismatch.

    Oooo.

    • #51
  22. Hang On Member
    Hang On
    @HangOn

    Painter Jean (View Comment):

    I think it is in our interest to worry about. Putin unchecked is emphatically a problem for America and not just Europe. And don’t think that China isn’t watching how the West responds to Putin…..there’s deterrence value in stopping Putin.

    There’s even more value in sitting down and negotiating. Instead, we have the likes of Lindsay Graham and Thom Tillis talking about killing Putin. We have an administration that keeps telling Zelensky not to negotiate. We have an administration will settle for nothing short of regime change in Moscow – a policy that has worked so, so well and for the benefit of Americans. When are people going to wake up that our politicians are a bunch of corrupt grifters who need things like Ukraine going on in order to have payouts to their corrupt military contractors who can then kick back a percentage in campaign contributions and hire the approved lobbyists for more corrupt contracts? How many times do you have to fall for it? Meanwhile, Ukrainians get slaughtered. Before that, it was Iraqis, Afghans, Syrians. Next it will be Taiwanese.

    Don’t give up though. Hopefully, there will be a wave of anti-war Republicans winning primaries like JD Vance. The big donor neocons should be told to take a hike. They aren’t needed or wanted.

    • #52
  23. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    Painter Jean (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Your apparent satisfaction with the status quo or at least dissatisfaction with those of us furious about it is at odds with the idea that change is supposed to come from us.

    Jean voted for the pResident in Chief, so we should definitely give her a hard time.

    I did not. I voted for Trump, and even had his sign on my lawn. Stop with your lies.

    My apologies. I was wrong. I know you couldn’t stand him.

    • #53
  24. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    That’s why we need the Republicans — the only viable alternative — to beat them

    Yes, I remember when the Romneyfans at Ricochet commanded us to vote for Romney because he was “the only viable alternative” to beat Obama.

    Clearly we need better alternatives.

    I agree with you, Drew. We need better alternatives.

    But if they don’t run as Republicans, it is a virtual certainty that they won’t win.

    And if they try running as Republicans, but they’re not slavishly devoted to the establishment ideology, they get booted from the ballot by the old boys’ club.

    That’s both inaccurately sweeping and pointlessly defeatist, but not without a grain of truth.

    But it doesn’t matter: however imperfect the situation, we’re still stuck with it. So we can act like rational adults, or we can act like petulant children. I think the rational, adult thing to do is pursue the best practical and achievable outcome, however frustrating our limitations.

    The basic issue is that seniority pretty much rules in Congress. The emergence of America first/populism/whatever-you want-to-call-it may have started with Pat Buchanan, but it did not get a real foothold until the Tea Party, and did not emerge as a force until the 2016 election.

    There are lots of Congress critters that predate 2016 and even the Tea Party. They have seniority and are from a “Republican Party” that existed under George W. Bush. McCarthy was elected in 2007. So they have seniority and the power of incumbency. In short, while frustrating to many, change in the party is possible (JD Vance?) but will simply not happen all that fast

    So what you’re saying is… get rid of our senior members.

    • #54
  25. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    Painter Jean (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Painter Jean (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Painter Jean (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Locke On (View Comment):

    Pragmatically, Ukraine gets $40 billion because it has substantial support from both parties. The border doesn’t get $4 billion because the Dims will do nothing to stop the flood of aliens into our country, no matter how the Pubs vote. If that doesn’t change next January, then yes they deserve condemnation.

    We had the house and the pubs did nothing.

    Why should it be different next time?

    Still, I definitely think you and others who share your mindset should start a third party.

    Nope. I want yours.

    Ha!

    But that’s a lot of people we’re going to have to remove from office.

    As with nearly everything, it’s actually not that big a task. Marginal effects. It doesn’t take an actual Moslem majority to chill freedoms — see Britain. It doesn’t take replacement of all the bad Republicans to change the party. We just need to wound enough of them that the rest get the new religion.

    It’s revealing that you use the word “wound”, instead of, say, “persuade”. Good luck building a party that has appeal to a broad range of voters when that’s your tactic.

    You speak as if this is Day One. How do you think I intend to persuade numbers? By wounding individuals. POLITICALLY of course, in case you refuse to get that point as well.

    Needing to politically “wound” politicians who don’t see everything as you do tells me that you don’t have an argument that persuades a majority of voters on your side. You’re the mirror image of the loud progressives on the other side of the aisle, who are loud, threatening, and who are willing to scare Democrat pols into doing their bidding, no matter how unpopular their policies may actually be. It’s easier to wound than to persuade, so I see the appeal for you.

    Save it for the duck pond.  You know, the one at the university where the philosophy and English majors debate how to change world.  They all go on to manage restaurants, washing dishes when they can’t “persuade” the workforce.

    • #55
  26. DrewInWisconsin, Oik! Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik!
    @DrewInWisconsin

    BDB (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    There are lots of Congress critters that predate 2016 and even the Tea Party. They have seniority and are from a “Republican Party” that existed under George W. Bush. McCarthy was elected in 2007. So they have seniority and the power of incumbency. In short, while frustrating to many, change in the party is possible (JD Vance?) but will simply not happen all that fast

    So what you’re saying is… get rid of our senior members.

    I don’t think we need term limits as much as upper age limits the same way we have lower age limits. Forced retirement once they hit 75.

    • #56
  27. Painter Jean Member
    Painter Jean
    @PainterJean

    Stina (View Comment):

    Painter Jean (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Your apparent satisfaction with the status quo or at least dissatisfaction with those of us furious about it is at odds with the idea that change is supposed to come from us.

    Jean voted for the pResident in Chief, so we should definitely give her a hard time.

    I did not. I voted for Trump, and even had his sign on my lawn. Stop with your lies.

    My apologies. I was wrong. I know you couldn’t stand him.

    Thank you for your apology!

    I liked many of his policies (energy in particular), but you’re right, I didn’t like him. If he is the candidate in 2024, I will vote for him but to be honest I’d prefer someone else.  And can’t we as Americans nominate people who aren’t so aged?!

    • #57
  28. Painter Jean Member
    Painter Jean
    @PainterJean

    BDB (View Comment):

    Painter Jean (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Painter Jean (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Painter Jean (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Locke On (View Comment):

    Pragmatically, Ukraine gets $40 billion because it has substantial support from both parties. The border doesn’t get $4 billion because the Dims will do nothing to stop the flood of aliens into our country, no matter how the Pubs vote. If that doesn’t change next January, then yes they deserve condemnation.

    We had the house and the pubs did nothing.

    Why should it be different next time?

    Still, I definitely think you and others who share your mindset should start a third party.

    Nope. I want yours.

    Ha!

    But that’s a lot of people we’re going to have to remove from office.

    As with nearly everything, it’s actually not that big a task. Marginal effects. It doesn’t take an actual Moslem majority to chill freedoms — see Britain. It doesn’t take replacement of all the bad Republicans to change the party. We just need to wound enough of them that the rest get the new religion.

    It’s revealing that you use the word “wound”, instead of, say, “persuade”. Good luck building a party that has appeal to a broad range of voters when that’s your tactic.

    You speak as if this is Day One. How do you think I intend to persuade numbers? By wounding individuals. POLITICALLY of course, in case you refuse to get that point as well.

    Needing to politically “wound” politicians who don’t see everything as you do tells me that you don’t have an argument that persuades a majority of voters on your side. You’re the mirror image of the loud progressives on the other side of the aisle, who are loud, threatening, and who are willing to scare Democrat pols into doing their bidding, no matter how unpopular their policies may actually be. It’s easier to wound than to persuade, so I see the appeal for you.

    Save it for the duck pond. You know, the one at the university where the philosophy and English majors debate how to change world. They all go on to manage restaurants, washing dishes when they can’t “persuade” the workforce.

    If only they all went on to become restaurant managers and dish washers. They’d probably regain the common sense they lost by attending college. Unfortunately too many of them stay at the university and pass on the idiocy to the next crop of students.

    • #58
  29. Painter Jean Member
    Painter Jean
    @PainterJean

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    There are lots of Congress critters that predate 2016 and even the Tea Party. They have seniority and are from a “Republican Party” that existed under George W. Bush. McCarthy was elected in 2007. So they have seniority and the power of incumbency. In short, while frustrating to many, change in the party is possible (JD Vance?) but will simply not happen all that fast

    So what you’re saying is… get rid of our senior members.

    I don’t think we need term limits as much as upper age limits the same way we have lower age limits. Forced retirement once they hit 75.

    I’m sympathetic to that idea….

    • #59
  30. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik! (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    There are lots of Congress critters that predate 2016 and even the Tea Party. They have seniority and are from a “Republican Party” that existed under George W. Bush. McCarthy was elected in 2007. So they have seniority and the power of incumbency. In short, while frustrating to many, change in the party is possible (JD Vance?) but will simply not happen all that fast

    So what you’re saying is… get rid of our senior members.

    I don’t think we need term limits as much as upper age limits the same way we have lower age limits. Forced retirement once they hit 75.

    I don;t mean term limits.  I mean primarying the dead weight or supporting opposition in select cases.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.