Donald Trump
Comments
-
You're still making the mistake that there was any option for dems to split of a few repubs. It's just not true.rick_chasey said:The more the nutters switch the more the speaker is giving MAGA promises.
Democrats are foolish to give the MAGA lot more leverage.0 -
He finally got across the line at the 15th attempt.0
-
I don’t think that’s true tbh.kingstongraham said:
You're still making the mistake that there was any option for dems to split of a few repubs. It's just not true.rick_chasey said:The more the nutters switch the more the speaker is giving MAGA promises.
Democrats are foolish to give the MAGA lot more leverage.
Anyway, we’ve gone from the MAGA candidates getting a drubbing in the election to securing major concessions.
🫣
MAGA are the enemy of the entire political edifice of America and the people who support democracy ought to understand that. Plenty of Republicans think the coup was awful.0 -
It will be interesting to know if the MAGA cabal will be blocking additional spending on helping Ukraine, and whether roubles will find their way into their bank accounts, one way or another. There are suggestions that the likes of Gaetz got promises from McCarthy in return for their (eventual) votes, and the involvement of Trump's proxies in the Ukraine shenanigans and the connections with Russia don't bode well.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/01/07/kevin-mccarthy-fails-14th-ballot-speaker-us-house/Kevin McCarthy reportedly agreed to spending caps that would limit future aid to Ukraine as part of the deal with ultraconservatives that enabled him to finally be elected as House speaker on Saturday.
Mr McCarthy, a Republican, secured the position in the early hours, following a historic five-day 15-vote fight that brought Washington to a standstill.
His Right-wing opponents from the chamber's Freedom Caucus, dubbed the “Taliban 20”, wielded their opposition to US aid for Kyiv as part of their justification for voting against him in the first 14 votes.0 -
Probably, but Biden has quite extensive executive powers to release funding. Trump used the to build a wall, for example.briantrumpet said:It will be interesting to know if the MAGA cabal will be blocking additional spending on helping Ukraine, and whether roubles will find their way into their bank accounts, one way or another. There are suggestions that the likes of Gaetz got promises from McCarthy in return for their (eventual) votes, and the involvement of Trump's proxies in the Ukraine shenanigans and the connections with Russia don't bode well.
0 -
Short term win long term loss for democrats.briantrumpet said:It will be interesting to know if the MAGA cabal will be blocking additional spending on helping Ukraine, and whether roubles will find their way into their bank accounts, one way or another. There are suggestions that the likes of Gaetz got promises from McCarthy in return for their (eventual) votes, and the involvement of Trump's proxies in the Ukraine shenanigans and the connections with Russia don't bode well.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/01/07/kevin-mccarthy-fails-14th-ballot-speaker-us-house/Kevin McCarthy reportedly agreed to spending caps that would limit future aid to Ukraine as part of the deal with ultraconservatives that enabled him to finally be elected as House speaker on Saturday.
Mr McCarthy, a Republican, secured the position in the early hours, following a historic five-day 15-vote fight that brought Washington to a standstill.
His Right-wing opponents from the chamber's Freedom Caucus, dubbed the “Taliban 20”, wielded their opposition to US aid for Kyiv as part of their justification for voting against him in the first 14 votes.
0 -
You're still 100% wrong about the Democrats' power in the situation that just happened.
0 -
Gonna have to accept we disagree on this one. If your version of events is correct then the Democrats would have been better off losing the house by more seats (to non-maga candidates), but I don't think that is the right analysis.
I do think, and I suspect you will agree, that the threat of MAGA is deeply underestimated on both sides.
They've now got a version of the republicans which is even more destructive than they normally are.
As I said upthread the budget cap is going to be a disaster, and there will be problems for Ukraine, as the MAGA lot have been captured by Russia.0 -
It is ridiculous to argue this, because it would require all Democrats to vote for a republican candidate rather than their own candidate. That candidate would then be seen as a proxy democrat, A dozen or so republicans ould also jave to chose that democrat nominated republican and be tarred with the same brush by their party and electorate, limiting long term career prospects. Above all they would have to find someone willing to do that to themselves, knowing the position in the end would be untenable.rick_chasey said:Gonna have to accept we disagree on this one. If your version of events is correct then the Democrats would have been better off losing the house by more seats (to non-maga candidates), but I don't think that is the right analysis.
I do think, and I suspect you will agree, that the threat of MAGA is deeply underestimated on both sides.
Apart from that there were no barriers at all to your plan.
0 -
Not all democrats, just enough to get the candidate over the line with some of their concessions, rather than the nutter MAGA concessions.First.Aspect said:
It is ridiculous to argue this, because it would require all Democrats to vote for a republican candidate rather than their own candidate. That candidate would then be seen as a proxy democrat, A dozen or so republicans ould also jave to chose that democrat nominated republican and be tarred with the same brush by their party and electorate, limiting long term career prospects. Above all they would have to find someone willing to do that to themselves, knowing the position in the end would be untenable.rick_chasey said:Gonna have to accept we disagree on this one. If your version of events is correct then the Democrats would have been better off losing the house by more seats (to non-maga candidates), but I don't think that is the right analysis.
I do think, and I suspect you will agree, that the threat of MAGA is deeply underestimated on both sides.
Apart from that there were no barriers at all to your plan.
I get compromise is a dirty word in the US but come on. There are plenty of "I don't agree with Biden but I'm a democrat" types around who are centre enough to use some leverage.
It's pretty short-termist and it's cutting noses off to spite their faces on both sides not to compromise.
It's game theory and they all failed.0 -
What candidate? You mean a candidate that 200+ republican members hadn't nominated?rick_chasey said:
Not all democrats, just enough to get the candidate over the line with some of their concessions, rather than the nutter MAGA concessions.First.Aspect said:
It is ridiculous to argue this, because it would require all Democrats to vote for a republican candidate rather than their own candidate. That candidate would then be seen as a proxy democrat, A dozen or so republicans ould also jave to chose that democrat nominated republican and be tarred with the same brush by their party and electorate, limiting long term career prospects. Above all they would have to find someone willing to do that to themselves, knowing the position in the end would be untenable.rick_chasey said:Gonna have to accept we disagree on this one. If your version of events is correct then the Democrats would have been better off losing the house by more seats (to non-maga candidates), but I don't think that is the right analysis.
I do think, and I suspect you will agree, that the threat of MAGA is deeply underestimated on both sides.
Apart from that there were no barriers at all to your plan.
I get compromise is a dirty word in the US but come on. There are plenty of "I don't agree with Biden but I'm a democrat" types around who are centre enough to use some leverage.
Okay, so you are still needing 200+ to switch votes to what would then be a speaker propped upby the democrat party.
That's just the other two sides of the square.
0 -
-
Who are these mythical Republicans who would vote with the dems?
And what then happens for the rest of the two year term? Do the Republicans suddenly shrug their shoulders and say "well OK then"?
The evidence this was not possible is that it didn't happen, and that the Republicans have a speaker.0 -
This is pointless.0
-
Sure, we disagree. That's OK.
This from a democrat a few days ago:House Democrat Brad Sherman floated a potential deal Wednesday that would trade Democratic votes to make beleaguered Republican Kevin McCarthy the speaker of the House in return for rules aimed at preventing a US government shutdown or a debt limit crisis.
“Eventually, he’s going to have to cut a deal with Democrats, because it’s going to be easier to get a deal with us than with his 20-headed monster he has over there,” the California Democrat said on Bloomberg Radio’s “Balance of Power” program. “He’s going to have to agree with Democrats to not hold hostage the full faith and credit of the United States, to not put us in a position where we’re going to shut down the government. And eventually I think Americans will benefit from this ugly picture of chaos.”
So I'm not a madman on his own thoughts here.0 -
The MAGA lot are properly mental, even by Republican standards. They want to burn the whole thing down to the ground, figuratively and literally.
It's a mistake not pushing that line harder.0 -
That analysis proved wrong though.rick_chasey said:Sure, we disagree. That's OK.
This from a democrat a few days ago:House Democrat Brad Sherman floated a potential deal Wednesday that would trade Democratic votes to make beleaguered Republican Kevin McCarthy the speaker of the House in return for rules aimed at preventing a US government shutdown or a debt limit crisis.
“Eventually, he’s going to have to cut a deal with Democrats, because it’s going to be easier to get a deal with us than with his 20-headed monster he has over there,” the California Democrat said on Bloomberg Radio’s “Balance of Power” program. “He’s going to have to agree with Democrats to not hold hostage the full faith and credit of the United States, to not put us in a position where we’re going to shut down the government. And eventually I think Americans will benefit from this ugly picture of chaos.”
So I'm not a madman on his own thoughts here.0 -
And was also not your suggestion.kingstongraham said:
That analysis proved wrong though.rick_chasey said:Sure, we disagree. That's OK.
This from a democrat a few days ago:House Democrat Brad Sherman floated a potential deal Wednesday that would trade Democratic votes to make beleaguered Republican Kevin McCarthy the speaker of the House in return for rules aimed at preventing a US government shutdown or a debt limit crisis.
“Eventually, he’s going to have to cut a deal with Democrats, because it’s going to be easier to get a deal with us than with his 20-headed monster he has over there,” the California Democrat said on Bloomberg Radio’s “Balance of Power” program. “He’s going to have to agree with Democrats to not hold hostage the full faith and credit of the United States, to not put us in a position where we’re going to shut down the government. And eventually I think Americans will benefit from this ugly picture of chaos.”
So I'm not a madman on his own thoughts here.
And also largely intended for the Democrats to be able to say they tried.0 -
I don't think they tried nearly hard enough. Certainly the glee from which most of the democrats behaved did not really suggest to me anyway they understood the long-term implications of all of this.
I'm looking at this through a historical lens.
Imagine MAGA are Nazis for a moment. Not an enormous leap, granted.
Now think about whether it made sense to give them more leverage.0 -
You are doing that repeating the argument thing again RC.
Would it help if someone got personal now?0 -
Yeah, I do it to practice the argument. This place is like a sandbox for articulating the things you think/feel about. So if I say it in a different way, is it more effective?
Basically i think MAGA lot have the propensity to be properly evil types, and I think both sides underestimate the risk of MAGA having any kind of power. They're a political irrelevance until they're not, and then it's too late.
It suits MAGA lots to create chaos, as they're interested in proving democracy is not working and a dictatorship is a better alternative.
The concessions given to the MAGA lot empower them to do exactly that.0 -
Objectively, you need a separate and large audience for each iteration. Unfortunately for us, we've already heard the previous 10 versions.2
-
MAGA aren't owned by Russia (as you put it Rick).
Bizarrely you're wrong, again..The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
the "glee" displayed was no different to grnersl pisstakingat PMQs, tbh.rick_chasey said:I don't think they tried nearly hard enough. Certainly the glee from which most of the democrats behaved did not really suggest to me anyway they understood the long-term implications of all of this.
I'm looking at this through a historical lens.
Imagine MAGA are Nazis for a moment. Not an enormous leap, granted.
Now think about whether it made sense to give them more leverage.
and of course they are aware of sll the implications, or are saying that a bloke from Cambridge who orks in HR knows more sbout the US politicsl system than all Democrat members plus their advisors plus their friends snd families?.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
no Rick, they aren't Nazis either.rick_chasey said:I don't think they tried nearly hard enough. Certainly the glee from which most of the democrats behaved did not really suggest to me anyway they understood the long-term implications of all of this.
I'm looking at this through a historical lens.
Imagine MAGA are Nazis for a moment. Not an enormous leap, granted.
Now think about whether it made sense to give them more leverage.
are you trolling? it very much seems like it.
.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
McCarthy voted against certifying the election results on 6th Jan 2021 AFTER the riot.0
-
McCarthy also came out vrhemently AGAINST Trump, 6th Jan and the big lie until he realised that he had stuffed himself in the Rep party and went to Mar A Lsgo to plead forgiveness.
He then voted along party lines.
What's your POINT?.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
He's on a mission to make it 14 times and for us to agree on the 15th?1
-
yup.
and if we don't we're still wrong and he's still right.
.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
He's not going to do anything that he thinks might affect his power in the Republican party. He's never going to do a deal with the Democrats unless that is what the party wants him to do. And they were nowhere close to it. Maybe after 40 votes with the extreme nutcases still voting against him they might have been open to it.MattFalle said:McCarthy also came out vrhemently AGAINST Trump, 6th Jan and the big lie until he realised that he had stuffed himself in the Rep party and went to Mar A Lsgo to plead forgiveness.
He then voted along party lines.
What's your point?
It's bad that there were concessions to the nutjobs, but that is in no way any reflection on the Democrats. Their failure came in not raising the debt ceiling before now. They got lots done while they could, but there should have been urgency in absolutely everything.0
