“90% of the content on TikTok is pro-Palestinian, now blonde European and American girls with tattoos all over their bodies are now converting to Islam. TikTok is a gift from Allah”

- Former President of the Jordanian Medical Association Dr. Tareq Tahboub pic.twitter.com/h9dPMgVmDP

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) May 15, 2024

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Don't be the jackass.

---

LOL. MTG is a carpenter?

---

moreso than you, my friend.

Can you tell me a policy issue where you have sharp disagreement with her?

---

If she agrees with me on policy, does that make her an moderate?

---

so you agree that your aversion to her is about tactics rather than policy?

---

So you agree that my policies are as conservative as hers?

---

Have I not maintained consistently that moderate distaste for conservative activism is usually mostly about strategy and tactics rather than about the particulars of policy planks?

---

There is no way you can do nothing about MTG.

---

LOL. It'd be pretty easy. Just quit attacking her and start working with her. Give. Her. Something. That's what politics is, right....cutting deals with opponents?

Moderates say they will work with anyone, but that's a lie. They can't stand to have to work with conservatives.

---

WHAT!!!! After all your talk on RINOS, Neos, UniParty and how moderate compromise is the sign of weakness. Your advice is to give her what she wants?? How about Trump get a leash on his attack dog.

---

That's what moderates do, right?....compromise, right? Why not start with her...FIRST? Having her on board makes you stronger, not weaker.

She's not exactly an attack dog, but why would any Republican leader who had one leash it up? The GOP attack dog is the Democrats' problem. They better make it happy or there'll be pain. That's the way the Dems use the squad, and they get their agenda implemented by miles at a time. Why can't we do the same thing?
(this is what I'm talking about when I say "move the Overton Window.") Dems stand with the Squad, put big slabs of things they like into legislation, knowing the GOP moderates will support some of it in the name of bipartisanship. And typically, it does work out that way. GOP moderates crossing the aisle to vote for stuff they know the base will not like, then blaming the GOP base for being unreasonable when they do complain about it.

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Don't be the jackass.

---

LOL. MTG is a carpenter?

---

moreso than you, my friend.

Can you tell me a policy issue where you have sharp disagreement with her?

---

If she agrees with me on policy, does that make her an moderate?

---

so you agree that your aversion to her is about tactics rather than policy?

---

So you agree that my policies are as conservative as hers?

---

Have I not maintained consistently that moderate distaste for conservative activism is usually mostly about strategy and tactics rather than about the particulars of policy planks?

---

There is no way you can do nothing about MTG.

---

LOL. It'd be pretty easy. Just quit attacking her and start working with her. Give. Her. Something. That's what politics is, right....cutting deals with opponents?

Moderates say they will work with anyone, but that's a lie. They can't stand to have to work with conservatives.

---

I posted a double negative in response to your unintelligible post. I assumed it was a joke

---

If you feel you have to do something about her, why not work WITH her rather than attacking her? The former makes your stronger; the latter makes you weaker.

The good cop, bad cop routine can be very effective......

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Don't be the jackass.

---

LOL. MTG is a carpenter?

---

moreso than you, my friend.

Can you tell me a policy issue where you have sharp disagreement with her?

---

If she agrees with me on policy, does that make her an moderate?

---

so you agree that your aversion to her is about tactics rather than policy?

---

So you agree that my policies are as conservative as hers?

---

Have I not maintained consistently that moderate distaste for conservative activism is usually mostly about strategy and tactics rather than about the particulars of policy planks?

---

There is no way you can do nothing about MTG.

---

LOL. It'd be pretty easy. Just quit attacking her and start working with her. Give. Her. Something. That's what politics is, right....cutting deals with opponents?

Moderates say they will work with anyone, but that's a lie. They can't stand to have to work with conservatives.

---

WHAT!!!! After all your talk on RINOS, Neos, UniParty and how moderate compromise is the sign of weakness. Your advice is to give her what she wants?? How about Trump get a leash on his attack dog.

---

That's what moderates do, right?....compromise, right? Why not start with her...FIRST? Having her on board makes you stronger, not weaker.

She's not exactly an attack dog, but why would any Republican leader who had one leash it up? The GOP attack dog is the Democrats' problem. They better make it happy or there'll be pain. That's the way the Dems use the squad, and they get their agenda implemented by miles at a time. Why can't we do the same thing?
(this is what I'm talking about when I say "move the Overton Window.") Dems stand with the Squad, put big slabs of things they like into legislation, knowing the GOP moderates will support some of it in the name of bipartisanship. And typically, it does work out that way. GOP moderates crossing the aisle to vote for stuff they know the base will not like, then blaming the GOP base for being unreasonable when they do complain about it.

---

GOP is just controlled opposition for the neoliberal uniparty. It serves to quell populist or libertarian dissent against their political monopoly,

Their biggest fear is they know Trump will do a good job in his second term and it will create a huge uprising against the establishment/uniparty.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Don't be the jackass.

---

LOL. MTG is a carpenter?

---

moreso than you, my friend.

Can you tell me a policy issue where you have sharp disagreement with her?

---

If she agrees with me on policy, does that make her an moderate?

---

so you agree that your aversion to her is about tactics rather than policy?

---

So you agree that my policies are as conservative as hers?

---

Have I not maintained consistently that moderate distaste for conservative activism is usually mostly about strategy and tactics rather than about the particulars of policy planks?

---

There is no way you can do nothing about MTG.

---

LOL. It'd be pretty easy. Just quit attacking her and start working with her. Give. Her. Something. That's what politics is, right....cutting deals with opponents?

Moderates say they will work with anyone, but that's a lie. They can't stand to have to work with conservatives.

---

WHAT!!!! After all your talk on RINOS, Neos, UniParty and how moderate compromise is the sign of weakness. Your advice is to give her what she wants?? How about Trump get a leash on his attack dog.

---

That's what moderates do, right?....compromise, right? Why not start with her...FIRST? Having her on board makes you stronger, not weaker.

She's not exactly an attack dog, but why would any Republican leader who had one leash it up? The GOP attack dog is the Democrats' problem. They better make it happy or there'll be pain. That's the way the Dems use the squad, and they get their agenda implemented by miles at a time. Why can't we do the same thing?
(this is what I'm talking about when I say "move the Overton Window.") Dems stand with the Squad, put big slabs of things they like into legislation, knowing the GOP moderates will support some of it in the name of bipartisanship. And typically, it does work out that way. GOP moderates crossing the aisle to vote for stuff they know the base will not like, then blaming the GOP base for being unreasonable when they do complain about it.

---

Normal attack dogs yes

Those that attack their own party?

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Don't be the jackass.

---

LOL. MTG is a carpenter?

---

moreso than you, my friend.

Can you tell me a policy issue where you have sharp disagreement with her?

---

If she agrees with me on policy, does that make her an moderate?

---

so you agree that your aversion to her is about tactics rather than policy?

---

So you agree that my policies are as conservative as hers?

---

Have I not maintained consistently that moderate distaste for conservative activism is usually mostly about strategy and tactics rather than about the particulars of policy planks?

---

There is no way you can do nothing about MTG.

---

LOL. It'd be pretty easy. Just quit attacking her and start working with her. Give. Her. Something. That's what politics is, right....cutting deals with opponents?

Moderates say they will work with anyone, but that's a lie. They can't stand to have to work with conservatives.

---

WHAT!!!! After all your talk on RINOS, Neos, UniParty and how moderate compromise is the sign of weakness. Your advice is to give her what she wants?? How about Trump get a leash on his attack dog.

---

That's what moderates do, right?....compromise, right? Why not start with her...FIRST? Having her on board makes you stronger, not weaker.

She's not exactly an attack dog, but why would any Republican leader who had one leash it up? The GOP attack dog is the Democrats' problem. They better make it happy or there'll be pain. That's the way the Dems use the squad, and they get their agenda implemented by miles at a time. Why can't we do the same thing?
(this is what I'm talking about when I say "move the Overton Window.") Dems stand with the Squad, put big slabs of things they like into legislation, knowing the GOP moderates will support some of it in the name of bipartisanship. And typically, it does work out that way. GOP moderates crossing the aisle to vote for stuff they know the base will not like, then blaming the GOP base for being unreasonable when they do complain about it.

---

Normal attack dogs yes

Those that attack their own party?

---

Is MTG or her affinity groups likely to vote for Biden or RFK? Never
Are Independents? Maybe.
Are Haley/McLain voters slam dunk Trump voters? IDK

MTG will NEVER be happy. Why try to appease someone who will never be appeased?

Osodecentx said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Don't be the jackass.

---

LOL. MTG is a carpenter?

---

moreso than you, my friend.

Can you tell me a policy issue where you have sharp disagreement with her?

---

If she agrees with me on policy, does that make her an moderate?

---

so you agree that your aversion to her is about tactics rather than policy?

---

So you agree that my policies are as conservative as hers?

---

Have I not maintained consistently that moderate distaste for conservative activism is usually mostly about strategy and tactics rather than about the particulars of policy planks?

---

There is no way you can do nothing about MTG.

---

LOL. It'd be pretty easy. Just quit attacking her and start working with her. Give. Her. Something. That's what politics is, right....cutting deals with opponents?

Moderates say they will work with anyone, but that's a lie. They can't stand to have to work with conservatives.

---

WHAT!!!! After all your talk on RINOS, Neos, UniParty and how moderate compromise is the sign of weakness. Your advice is to give her what she wants?? How about Trump get a leash on his attack dog.

---

That's what moderates do, right?....compromise, right? Why not start with her...FIRST? Having her on board makes you stronger, not weaker.

She's not exactly an attack dog, but why would any Republican leader who had one leash it up? The GOP attack dog is the Democrats' problem. They better make it happy or there'll be pain. That's the way the Dems use the squad, and they get their agenda implemented by miles at a time. Why can't we do the same thing?
(this is what I'm talking about when I say "move the Overton Window.") Dems stand with the Squad, put big slabs of things they like into legislation, knowing the GOP moderates will support some of it in the name of bipartisanship. And typically, it does work out that way. GOP moderates crossing the aisle to vote for stuff they know the base will not like, then blaming the GOP base for being unreasonable when they do complain about it.

---

Normal attack dogs yes

Those that attack their own party?

---

Is MTG or her affinity groups likely to vote for Biden or RFK? Never
Are Independents? Maybe.
Are Haley/McLain voters slam dunk Trump voters? IDK

MTG will NEVER be happy. Why try to appease someone who will never be appeased?

---

Especially if it will cost you voters you need in cohorts you traditionally poll low?

This is what I am talking about, MTG should be negotiating behind closed doors, not going against the Nominee and calling for the Speaker removal during a General election! She is counterproductive. No matter if she represents the soul of the far right.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Don't be the jackass.

---

LOL. MTG is a carpenter?

---

moreso than you, my friend.

Can you tell me a policy issue where you have sharp disagreement with her?

---

If she agrees with me on policy, does that make her an moderate?

---

so you agree that your aversion to her is about tactics rather than policy?

---

So you agree that my policies are as conservative as hers?

---

Have I not maintained consistently that moderate distaste for conservative activism is usually mostly about strategy and tactics rather than about the particulars of policy planks?

---

There is no way you can do nothing about MTG.

---

LOL. It'd be pretty easy. Just quit attacking her and start working with her. Give. Her. Something. That's what politics is, right....cutting deals with opponents?

Moderates say they will work with anyone, but that's a lie. They can't stand to have to work with conservatives.

---

WHAT!!!! After all your talk on RINOS, Neos, UniParty and how moderate compromise is the sign of weakness. Your advice is to give her what she wants?? How about Trump get a leash on his attack dog.

---

That's what moderates do, right?....compromise, right? Why not start with her...FIRST? Having her on board makes you stronger, not weaker.

She's not exactly an attack dog, but why would any Republican leader who had one leash it up? The GOP attack dog is the Democrats' problem. They better make it happy or there'll be pain. That's the way the Dems use the squad, and they get their agenda implemented by miles at a time. Why can't we do the same thing?
(this is what I'm talking about when I say "move the Overton Window.") Dems stand with the Squad, put big slabs of things they like into legislation, knowing the GOP moderates will support some of it in the name of bipartisanship. And typically, it does work out that way. GOP moderates crossing the aisle to vote for stuff they know the base will not like, then blaming the GOP base for being unreasonable when they do complain about it.

---

Normal attack dogs yes

Those that attack their own party?

---

Is MTG or her affinity groups likely to vote for Biden or RFK? Never
Are Independents? Maybe.
Are Haley/McLain voters slam dunk Trump voters? IDK

MTG will NEVER be happy. Why try to appease someone who will never be appeased?

---

Especially if it will cost you voters you need in cohorts you traditionally poll low?

This is what I am talking about, MTG should be negotiating behind closed doors, not going against the Nominee and calling for the Speaker removal during a General election! She is counterproductive. No matter if she represents the soul of the far right.

---

I agree. Grandstanding is counterproductive and possibly self serving. Alternatively it could also be out of desperation to shame the Speaker into doing what he promised. I don't know.

BearFan33 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Don't be the jackass.

---

LOL. MTG is a carpenter?

---

moreso than you, my friend.

Can you tell me a policy issue where you have sharp disagreement with her?

---

If she agrees with me on policy, does that make her an moderate?

---

so you agree that your aversion to her is about tactics rather than policy?

---

So you agree that my policies are as conservative as hers?

---

Have I not maintained consistently that moderate distaste for conservative activism is usually mostly about strategy and tactics rather than about the particulars of policy planks?

---

There is no way you can do nothing about MTG.

---

LOL. It'd be pretty easy. Just quit attacking her and start working with her. Give. Her. Something. That's what politics is, right....cutting deals with opponents?

Moderates say they will work with anyone, but that's a lie. They can't stand to have to work with conservatives.

---

WHAT!!!! After all your talk on RINOS, Neos, UniParty and how moderate compromise is the sign of weakness. Your advice is to give her what she wants?? How about Trump get a leash on his attack dog.

---

That's what moderates do, right?....compromise, right? Why not start with her...FIRST? Having her on board makes you stronger, not weaker.

She's not exactly an attack dog, but why would any Republican leader who had one leash it up? The GOP attack dog is the Democrats' problem. They better make it happy or there'll be pain. That's the way the Dems use the squad, and they get their agenda implemented by miles at a time. Why can't we do the same thing?
(this is what I'm talking about when I say "move the Overton Window.") Dems stand with the Squad, put big slabs of things they like into legislation, knowing the GOP moderates will support some of it in the name of bipartisanship. And typically, it does work out that way. GOP moderates crossing the aisle to vote for stuff they know the base will not like, then blaming the GOP base for being unreasonable when they do complain about it.

---

Normal attack dogs yes

Those that attack their own party?

---

Is MTG or her affinity groups likely to vote for Biden or RFK? Never
Are Independents? Maybe.
Are Haley/McLain voters slam dunk Trump voters? IDK

MTG will NEVER be happy. Why try to appease someone who will never be appeased?

---

Especially if it will cost you voters you need in cohorts you traditionally poll low?

This is what I am talking about, MTG should be negotiating behind closed doors, not going against the Nominee and calling for the Speaker removal during a General election! She is counterproductive. No matter if she represents the soul of the far right.

---

I agree. Grandstanding is counterproductive and possibly self serving. Alternatively it could also be out of desperation to shame the Speaker into doing what he promised. I don't know.

---

In my opinion, situational awareness.

We are in a General Election. The "base" MTG is playing for already are Trump through and through. Johnson, is acceptable to the Dems. He has shown to work with them. Trump has said, don't mover to remove. I think it is strategic to have Johnson work with the Dems and show the moderates and Reagan Democrats that Trump's going to work.

Would it work to Trump's advantage? Maybe. But, won't work is going all MTG and showing those voters there is no chance if Trump is elected. I see a lot of upside to Johnson and his record with Dems for Trump and no upside with Trump siding with MTG. Johnson shows he knows the political situation and made concessions to Dems. MTG only knows one speed, which is great in GOP Primary. But this is not that.

Thoughts. Besides I am an idiot I get enough of that...

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Don't be the jackass.

---

LOL. MTG is a carpenter?

---

moreso than you, my friend.

Can you tell me a policy issue where you have sharp disagreement with her?

---

If she agrees with me on policy, does that make her an moderate?

---

so you agree that your aversion to her is about tactics rather than policy?

---

So you agree that my policies are as conservative as hers?

---

Have I not maintained consistently that moderate distaste for conservative activism is usually mostly about strategy and tactics rather than about the particulars of policy planks?

---

There is no way you can do nothing about MTG.

---

LOL. It'd be pretty easy. Just quit attacking her and start working with her. Give. Her. Something. That's what politics is, right....cutting deals with opponents?

Moderates say they will work with anyone, but that's a lie. They can't stand to have to work with conservatives.

---

WHAT!!!! After all your talk on RINOS, Neos, UniParty and how moderate compromise is the sign of weakness. Your advice is to give her what she wants?? How about Trump get a leash on his attack dog.

---

That's what moderates do, right?....compromise, right? Why not start with her...FIRST? Having her on board makes you stronger, not weaker.

She's not exactly an attack dog, but why would any Republican leader who had one leash it up? The GOP attack dog is the Democrats' problem. They better make it happy or there'll be pain. That's the way the Dems use the squad, and they get their agenda implemented by miles at a time. Why can't we do the same thing?
(this is what I'm talking about when I say "move the Overton Window.") Dems stand with the Squad, put big slabs of things they like into legislation, knowing the GOP moderates will support some of it in the name of bipartisanship. And typically, it does work out that way. GOP moderates crossing the aisle to vote for stuff they know the base will not like, then blaming the GOP base for being unreasonable when they do complain about it.

---

Normal attack dogs yes

Those that attack their own party?

---

Why do BOTH parties have a leadership position with the word "whip" in it?

The question is....who's whipping whom?

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Don't be the jackass.

---

LOL. MTG is a carpenter?

---

moreso than you, my friend.

Can you tell me a policy issue where you have sharp disagreement with her?

---

If she agrees with me on policy, does that make her an moderate?

---

so you agree that your aversion to her is about tactics rather than policy?

---

So you agree that my policies are as conservative as hers?

---

Have I not maintained consistently that moderate distaste for conservative activism is usually mostly about strategy and tactics rather than about the particulars of policy planks?

---

There is no way you can do nothing about MTG.

---

LOL. It'd be pretty easy. Just quit attacking her and start working with her. Give. Her. Something. That's what politics is, right....cutting deals with opponents?

Moderates say they will work with anyone, but that's a lie. They can't stand to have to work with conservatives.

---

WHAT!!!! After all your talk on RINOS, Neos, UniParty and how moderate compromise is the sign of weakness. Your advice is to give her what she wants?? How about Trump get a leash on his attack dog.

---

That's what moderates do, right?....compromise, right? Why not start with her...FIRST? Having her on board makes you stronger, not weaker.

She's not exactly an attack dog, but why would any Republican leader who had one leash it up? The GOP attack dog is the Democrats' problem. They better make it happy or there'll be pain. That's the way the Dems use the squad, and they get their agenda implemented by miles at a time. Why can't we do the same thing?
(this is what I'm talking about when I say "move the Overton Window.") Dems stand with the Squad, put big slabs of things they like into legislation, knowing the GOP moderates will support some of it in the name of bipartisanship. And typically, it does work out that way. GOP moderates crossing the aisle to vote for stuff they know the base will not like, then blaming the GOP base for being unreasonable when they do complain about it.

---

Normal attack dogs yes

Those that attack their own party?

---

Why do BOTH parties have a leadership position with the word "whip" in it?

The question is....who's whipping whom?

---

MTG is the GOP Whip? I missed that. I didn't even think she was on a Committee, never mind Leadership. If she is the Party Whip, shouldn't she be supporting Johnson and Trump? Not going off on her own vendettas?

What makes more sense is that she, Gaetz or MAGA WOULDN'T accept such a role. Too many rules and actual responsibilities. Being the Whip would mean she and her cronies would have to act like adults. Too much part of the system. Nah. they strike me as the type that will throw Moltovs from the sidelines rather than actually fill a real job.

Maggie is nothing but an effing loon, just like the mega crowd. Batchit!

J.R. said:

---

Maggie is nothing but an effing loon, just like the mega crowd. Batchit!

---

There are other (and even a lot bigger) loons in the Congress than MTG

But for some strange reason you really hate her

This apparently started when MTG made fun of a black woman’s allegedly “fake eyelashes.” pic.twitter.com/gkSBL0GrDc

— Richard Hanania (@RichardHanania) May 17, 2024

The end of an empire vibes. Savages in the Congress. https://t.co/rTolO9Fa33

— RAMZPAUL (@ramzpaul) May 17, 2024

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Don't be the jackass.

---

LOL. MTG is a carpenter?

---

moreso than you, my friend.

Can you tell me a policy issue where you have sharp disagreement with her?

---

If she agrees with me on policy, does that make her an moderate?

---

so you agree that your aversion to her is about tactics rather than policy?

---

So you agree that my policies are as conservative as hers?

---

Have I not maintained consistently that moderate distaste for conservative activism is usually mostly about strategy and tactics rather than about the particulars of policy planks?

---

There is no way you can do nothing about MTG.

---

LOL. It'd be pretty easy. Just quit attacking her and start working with her. Give. Her. Something. That's what politics is, right....cutting deals with opponents?

Moderates say they will work with anyone, but that's a lie. They can't stand to have to work with conservatives.

---

WHAT!!!! After all your talk on RINOS, Neos, UniParty and how moderate compromise is the sign of weakness. Your advice is to give her what she wants?? How about Trump get a leash on his attack dog.

---

That's what moderates do, right?....compromise, right? Why not start with her...FIRST? Having her on board makes you stronger, not weaker.

She's not exactly an attack dog, but why would any Republican leader who had one leash it up? The GOP attack dog is the Democrats' problem. They better make it happy or there'll be pain. That's the way the Dems use the squad, and they get their agenda implemented by miles at a time. Why can't we do the same thing?
(this is what I'm talking about when I say "move the Overton Window.") Dems stand with the Squad, put big slabs of things they like into legislation, knowing the GOP moderates will support some of it in the name of bipartisanship. And typically, it does work out that way. GOP moderates crossing the aisle to vote for stuff they know the base will not like, then blaming the GOP base for being unreasonable when they do complain about it.

---

Normal attack dogs yes

Those that attack their own party?

---

Why do BOTH parties have a leadership position with the word "whip" in it?

The question is....who's whipping whom?

---

MTG is the GOP Whip? I missed that. I didn't even think she was on a Committee, never mind Leadership. If she is the Party Whip, shouldn't she be supporting Johnson and Trump? Not going off on her own vendettas?

What makes more sense is that she, Gaetz or MAGA WOULDN'T accept such a role. Too many rules and actual responsibilities. Being the Whip would mean she and her cronies would have to act like adults. Too much part of the system. Nah. they strike me as the type that will throw Moltovs from the sidelines rather than actually fill a real job.

---

The reason both parties have positions with the word "whip" in the title is precisely to attack members of their own party who stray too from the party line. The question is, what is the party line? To most conservatives, that is the agenda set out in the party platform....the things super-majorities of Republicans agree upon. Ergo, the whipping is supposed to occur in the center fringes, to enforce party discipline on super-majority platform issues, not to force the supermajority base to abandon platform principles. A party which is whipping its base (or not whipping its center), it can expect exactly the kinds of chaos we see going on now.

Moderates are not grandstanding like MTG, but they're being every bit as divisive, Their vacillation empowers them, too....it drives interest groups to their door to lobby, and lobbying means $$$$. New members of legislatures learn quickly that taking ambiguous positions entices the lobbies to spend to buy their votes. If they're always out front in support of stuff...well, their vote is already in the bag, so what's it worth? The publicly principled stands actually make it harder to leverage their vote into fundraising, unless they have enough seniority to hold a chairmanship. That's where the whip comes in....to counter-balance the lobby influence on the center-fringes of the parties, to make sure members feel the pressure of being primaried if they stray too far from the platform.

A smart whip will raise money for the MTG types, as she is helping the whip do his job to corral the center-fringe away from the lobby money. A whip who is trying to silence the MTG types......is working for the lobby money.

You should be grateful that someone is willing to do the messy work with the whip, rather than complaining that the whip work is messy.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Don't be the jackass.

---

LOL. MTG is a carpenter?

---

moreso than you, my friend.

Can you tell me a policy issue where you have sharp disagreement with her?

---

If she agrees with me on policy, does that make her an moderate?

---

so you agree that your aversion to her is about tactics rather than policy?

---

So you agree that my policies are as conservative as hers?

---

Have I not maintained consistently that moderate distaste for conservative activism is usually mostly about strategy and tactics rather than about the particulars of policy planks?

---

There is no way you can do nothing about MTG.

---

LOL. It'd be pretty easy. Just quit attacking her and start working with her. Give. Her. Something. That's what politics is, right....cutting deals with opponents?

Moderates say they will work with anyone, but that's a lie. They can't stand to have to work with conservatives.

---

WHAT!!!! After all your talk on RINOS, Neos, UniParty and how moderate compromise is the sign of weakness. Your advice is to give her what she wants?? How about Trump get a leash on his attack dog.

---

That's what moderates do, right?....compromise, right? Why not start with her...FIRST? Having her on board makes you stronger, not weaker.

She's not exactly an attack dog, but why would any Republican leader who had one leash it up? The GOP attack dog is the Democrats' problem. They better make it happy or there'll be pain. That's the way the Dems use the squad, and they get their agenda implemented by miles at a time. Why can't we do the same thing?
(this is what I'm talking about when I say "move the Overton Window.") Dems stand with the Squad, put big slabs of things they like into legislation, knowing the GOP moderates will support some of it in the name of bipartisanship. And typically, it does work out that way. GOP moderates crossing the aisle to vote for stuff they know the base will not like, then blaming the GOP base for being unreasonable when they do complain about it.

---

Normal attack dogs yes

Those that attack their own party?

---

Why do BOTH parties have a leadership position with the word "whip" in it?

The question is....who's whipping whom?

---

MTG is the GOP Whip? I missed that. I didn't even think she was on a Committee, never mind Leadership. If she is the Party Whip, shouldn't she be supporting Johnson and Trump? Not going off on her own vendettas?

What makes more sense is that she, Gaetz or MAGA WOULDN'T accept such a role. Too many rules and actual responsibilities. Being the Whip would mean she and her cronies would have to act like adults. Too much part of the system. Nah. they strike me as the type that will throw Moltovs from the sidelines rather than actually fill a real job.

---

The reason both parties have positions with the word "whip" in the title is precisely to attack members of their own party who stray too from the party line. The question is, what is the party line? To most conservatives, that is the agenda set out in the party platform....the things super-majorities of Republicans agree upon. Ergo, the whipping is supposed to occur in the center fringes, to enforce party discipline on super-majority platform issues, not to force the supermajority base to abandon platform principles. A party which is whipping its base (or not whipping its center), it can expect exactly the kinds of chaos we see going on now.

Moderates are not grandstanding like MTG, but they're being every bit as divisive, Their vacillation empowers them, too....it drives interest groups to their door to lobby, and lobbying means $$$$. New members of legislatures learn quickly that taking ambiguous positions entices the lobbies to spend to buy their votes. If they're always out front in support of stuff...well, their vote is already in the bag, so what's it worth? The publicly principled stands actually make it harder to leverage their vote into fundraising, unless they have enough seniority to hold a chairmanship. That's where the whip comes in....to counter-balance the lobby influence on the center-fringes of the parties, to make sure members feel the pressure of being primaried if they stray too far from the platform.

A smart whip will raise money for the MTG types, as she is helping the whip do his job to corral the center-fringe away from the lobby money. A whip who is trying to silence the MTG types......is working for the lobby money.

You should be grateful that someone is willing to do the messy work with the whip, rather than complaining that the whip work is messy.

---

I understand the role of the Whip. The question was is MTG the Whip (notice Capital).

But she is not the Whip. She picks and chooses whatever she wants to rail against. She attacks the Speaker, not supports the Party's position. That is NOT the Whip. She just yells at people about what she wants. If she were the Whip, she would be making sure any vote Johnson brings passes, en masse. You are giving her authority and standing she does not have.

boognish_bear said:

---

“90% of the content on TikTok is pro-Palestinian, now blonde European and American girls with tattoos all over their bodies are now converting to Islam. TikTok is a gift from Allah”

- Former President of the Jordanian Medical Association Dr. Tareq Tahboub pic.twitter.com/h9dPMgVmDP

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) May 15, 2024

---

A headline straight out of Babylon Bee, but apparently it's actually a thing.

Progressive Western women converting to Islam, sharing reasons on social media since 10/7 Hamas attack

Realitybites said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

“90% of the content on TikTok is pro-Palestinian, now blonde European and American girls with tattoos all over their bodies are now converting to Islam. TikTok is a gift from Allah”

- Former President of the Jordanian Medical Association Dr. Tareq Tahboub pic.twitter.com/h9dPMgVmDP

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) May 15, 2024

---

A headline straight out of Babylon Bee, but apparently it's actually a thing.

Progressive Western women converting to Islam, sharing reasons on social media since 10/7 Hamas attack

---

Interesting…

There was also this strange way that western women who self identified as very liberal also really really enjoyed wearing the Covid mask thing.

Strange parallels to face veiling in Islam.


I'm not sure what to make of that… but it might have something to do with very liberal women deep down wanting to be told what to do and be controlled?

Hard to say

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Don't be the jackass.

---

LOL. MTG is a carpenter?

---

moreso than you, my friend.

Can you tell me a policy issue where you have sharp disagreement with her?

---

If she agrees with me on policy, does that make her an moderate?

---

so you agree that your aversion to her is about tactics rather than policy?

---

So you agree that my policies are as conservative as hers?

---

Have I not maintained consistently that moderate distaste for conservative activism is usually mostly about strategy and tactics rather than about the particulars of policy planks?

---

There is no way you can do nothing about MTG.

---

LOL. It'd be pretty easy. Just quit attacking her and start working with her. Give. Her. Something. That's what politics is, right....cutting deals with opponents?

Moderates say they will work with anyone, but that's a lie. They can't stand to have to work with conservatives.

---

WHAT!!!! After all your talk on RINOS, Neos, UniParty and how moderate compromise is the sign of weakness. Your advice is to give her what she wants?? How about Trump get a leash on his attack dog.

---

That's what moderates do, right?....compromise, right? Why not start with her...FIRST? Having her on board makes you stronger, not weaker.

She's not exactly an attack dog, but why would any Republican leader who had one leash it up? The GOP attack dog is the Democrats' problem. They better make it happy or there'll be pain. That's the way the Dems use the squad, and they get their agenda implemented by miles at a time. Why can't we do the same thing?
(this is what I'm talking about when I say "move the Overton Window.") Dems stand with the Squad, put big slabs of things they like into legislation, knowing the GOP moderates will support some of it in the name of bipartisanship. And typically, it does work out that way. GOP moderates crossing the aisle to vote for stuff they know the base will not like, then blaming the GOP base for being unreasonable when they do complain about it.

---

Normal attack dogs yes

Those that attack their own party?

---

Why do BOTH parties have a leadership position with the word "whip" in it?

The question is....who's whipping whom?

---

MTG is the GOP Whip? I missed that. I didn't even think she was on a Committee, never mind Leadership. If she is the Party Whip, shouldn't she be supporting Johnson and Trump? Not going off on her own vendettas?

What makes more sense is that she, Gaetz or MAGA WOULDN'T accept such a role. Too many rules and actual responsibilities. Being the Whip would mean she and her cronies would have to act like adults. Too much part of the system. Nah. they strike me as the type that will throw Moltovs from the sidelines rather than actually fill a real job.

---

The reason both parties have positions with the word "whip" in the title is precisely to attack members of their own party who stray too from the party line. The question is, what is the party line? To most conservatives, that is the agenda set out in the party platform....the things super-majorities of Republicans agree upon. Ergo, the whipping is supposed to occur in the center fringes, to enforce party discipline on super-majority platform issues, not to force the supermajority base to abandon platform principles. A party which is whipping its base (or not whipping its center), it can expect exactly the kinds of chaos we see going on now.

Moderates are not grandstanding like MTG, but they're being every bit as divisive, Their vacillation empowers them, too....it drives interest groups to their door to lobby, and lobbying means $$$$. New members of legislatures learn quickly that taking ambiguous positions entices the lobbies to spend to buy their votes. If they're always out front in support of stuff...well, their vote is already in the bag, so what's it worth? The publicly principled stands actually make it harder to leverage their vote into fundraising, unless they have enough seniority to hold a chairmanship. That's where the whip comes in....to counter-balance the lobby influence on the center-fringes of the parties, to make sure members feel the pressure of being primaried if they stray too far from the platform.

A smart whip will raise money for the MTG types, as she is helping the whip do his job to corral the center-fringe away from the lobby money. A whip who is trying to silence the MTG types......is working for the lobby money.

You should be grateful that someone is willing to do the messy work with the whip, rather than complaining that the whip work is messy.

---

I understand the role of the Whip. The question was is MTG the Whip (notice Capital).

But she is not the Whip. She picks and chooses whatever she wants to rail against. She attacks the Speaker, not supports the Party's position. That is NOT the Whip. She just yells at people about what she wants. If she were the Whip, she would be making sure any vote Johnson brings passes, en masse. You are giving her authority and standing she does not have.

---

I'm giving her no more authority than her First Amendment rights.

Attacking people is what happens in politics, buddy. If you do not want to be attacked by conservatives, then quit attacking them and start working with them, to include voting more conservatively. not terribly serious to think that one can indulge in wheeling and dealing in ways completely disconnected to needs of the platform agenda and NOT get any criticism.

Her voice is not coming from the wilderness. It's coming from a majority of the Republican base, who are outraged that we keep getting House majorities that cannot pass platform items on a party-line vote like Democrats do all the time. Why can't we? (because we have "moderates" telling us we can't.)

Why is it that moderates are seemingly only happy when conservative items are defeated?
Why is it that moderates are unwilling to face accountability for their defections from party line?
Why should the base NOT be unhappy when their leadership sells them out?

If she's so dumb, why can't you figure out a way to work with her?
Give her a bridge or an airport or something. Put her name on Coast Guard dingy or sometjhing. Buy her off. Or you could take a far cheaper route - just put more platform items up for a vote and whip people to get them passed. But either way, a caucus in chaos is not an indictment on the caucus. It's an indictment on leadership.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

“90% of the content on TikTok is pro-Palestinian, now blonde European and American girls with tattoos all over their bodies are now converting to Islam. TikTok is a gift from Allah”

- Former President of the Jordanian Medical Association Dr. Tareq Tahboub pic.twitter.com/h9dPMgVmDP

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) May 15, 2024

---

A headline straight out of Babylon Bee, but apparently it's actually a thing.

Progressive Western women converting to Islam, sharing reasons on social media since 10/7 Hamas attack

---

Interesting…

There was also this strange way that western women who self identified as very liberal also really really enjoyed wearing the Covid mask thing.

Strange parallels to face veiling in Islam.


I'm not sure what to make of that… but it might have something to do with very liberal women deep down wanting to be told what to do and be controlled?

Hard to say

---

Could hold a kernel of truth. People, deep down, wanting to be told what to do. That way they can't be "wrong" and it becomes easier to not hold yourself accountable to your own actions.

or

It could be that we are (or already have) creating a generation of people that aren't special unless they're a victim, even if the victimhood is self-inflicted.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Don't be the jackass.

---

LOL. MTG is a carpenter?

---

moreso than you, my friend.

Can you tell me a policy issue where you have sharp disagreement with her?

---

If she agrees with me on policy, does that make her an moderate?

---

so you agree that your aversion to her is about tactics rather than policy?

---

So you agree that my policies are as conservative as hers?

---

Have I not maintained consistently that moderate distaste for conservative activism is usually mostly about strategy and tactics rather than about the particulars of policy planks?

---

There is no way you can do nothing about MTG.

---

LOL. It'd be pretty easy. Just quit attacking her and start working with her. Give. Her. Something. That's what politics is, right....cutting deals with opponents?

Moderates say they will work with anyone, but that's a lie. They can't stand to have to work with conservatives.

---

WHAT!!!! After all your talk on RINOS, Neos, UniParty and how moderate compromise is the sign of weakness. Your advice is to give her what she wants?? How about Trump get a leash on his attack dog.

---

That's what moderates do, right?....compromise, right? Why not start with her...FIRST? Having her on board makes you stronger, not weaker.

She's not exactly an attack dog, but why would any Republican leader who had one leash it up? The GOP attack dog is the Democrats' problem. They better make it happy or there'll be pain. That's the way the Dems use the squad, and they get their agenda implemented by miles at a time. Why can't we do the same thing?
(this is what I'm talking about when I say "move the Overton Window.") Dems stand with the Squad, put big slabs of things they like into legislation, knowing the GOP moderates will support some of it in the name of bipartisanship. And typically, it does work out that way. GOP moderates crossing the aisle to vote for stuff they know the base will not like, then blaming the GOP base for being unreasonable when they do complain about it.

---

Normal attack dogs yes

Those that attack their own party?

---

Why do BOTH parties have a leadership position with the word "whip" in it?

The question is....who's whipping whom?

---

MTG is the GOP Whip? I missed that. I didn't even think she was on a Committee, never mind Leadership. If she is the Party Whip, shouldn't she be supporting Johnson and Trump? Not going off on her own vendettas?

What makes more sense is that she, Gaetz or MAGA WOULDN'T accept such a role. Too many rules and actual responsibilities. Being the Whip would mean she and her cronies would have to act like adults. Too much part of the system. Nah. they strike me as the type that will throw Moltovs from the sidelines rather than actually fill a real job.

---

The reason both parties have positions with the word "whip" in the title is precisely to attack members of their own party who stray too from the party line. The question is, what is the party line? To most conservatives, that is the agenda set out in the party platform....the things super-majorities of Republicans agree upon. Ergo, the whipping is supposed to occur in the center fringes, to enforce party discipline on super-majority platform issues, not to force the supermajority base to abandon platform principles. A party which is whipping its base (or not whipping its center), it can expect exactly the kinds of chaos we see going on now.

Moderates are not grandstanding like MTG, but they're being every bit as divisive, Their vacillation empowers them, too....it drives interest groups to their door to lobby, and lobbying means $$$$. New members of legislatures learn quickly that taking ambiguous positions entices the lobbies to spend to buy their votes. If they're always out front in support of stuff...well, their vote is already in the bag, so what's it worth? The publicly principled stands actually make it harder to leverage their vote into fundraising, unless they have enough seniority to hold a chairmanship. That's where the whip comes in....to counter-balance the lobby influence on the center-fringes of the parties, to make sure members feel the pressure of being primaried if they stray too far from the platform.

A smart whip will raise money for the MTG types, as she is helping the whip do his job to corral the center-fringe away from the lobby money. A whip who is trying to silence the MTG types......is working for the lobby money.

You should be grateful that someone is willing to do the messy work with the whip, rather than complaining that the whip work is messy.

---

I understand the role of the Whip. The question was is MTG the Whip (notice Capital).

But she is not the Whip. She picks and chooses whatever she wants to rail against. She attacks the Speaker, not supports the Party's position. That is NOT the Whip. She just yells at people about what she wants. If she were the Whip, she would be making sure any vote Johnson brings passes, en masse. You are giving her authority and standing she does not have.

---

I'm giving her no more authority than her First Amendment rights.

Attacking people is what happens in politics, buddy. If you do not want to be attacked by conservatives, then quit attacking them and start working with them, to include voting more conservatively. not terribly serious to think that one can indulge in wheeling and dealing in ways completely disconnected to needs of the platform agenda and NOT get any criticism.

Her voice is not coming from the wilderness. It's coming from a majority of the Republican base, who are outraged that we keep getting House majorities that cannot pass platform items on a party-line vote like Democrats do all the time. Why can't we? (because we have "moderates" telling us we can't.)

Why is it that moderates are seemingly only happy when conservative items are defeated?
Why is it that moderates are unwilling to face accountability for their defections from party line?
Why should the base NOT be unhappy when their leadership sells them out?

If she's so dumb, why can't you figure out a way to work with her?
Give her a bridge or an airport or something. Put her name on Coast Guard dingy or sometjhing. Buy her off. Or you could take a far cheaper route - just put more platform items up for a vote and whip people to get them passed. But either way, a caucus in chaos is not an indictment on the caucus. It's an indictment on leadership.

---

No, it is not coming from the majority of R base! Or, she wouldn't have gotten her ass kicked on the vote to remove Johnson. Or, she would have SOME legislation approved. Look at her track record in Congress! She has brought up 12 bills, in 4 years, NONE have become law or passed. THAT IS NOT REPRESENTING THE BASE. Seems you are a bit more radical than you think, if you think MTG is the base.

She is nothing but an attack dog. Lately, dangerous for her, she is even going against Trump. See how that works out for her

That's a lot of fallacies to pack into a single post.

Do you think some of those bills were popular with the base of the party? That maybe they got drowned in swampishness, like the effort to tie border funding to funding for Israel and Ukraine?

The caucus and the base are not synonymous......

You just don't like her style. But an enormous swathe of the base does, because they are highly unhappy with the way business is being conducted. As long as a third or more of the GOP base is unhappy with the way a GOP congress operates, there will be loud voices pandering to it. That's politics. You either do what your base wants you to do, or you will hear about it. You are so tolerant of dissonance on other dynamics. Why is this one so hard for you to accept.

Man, I'm in disagreement with her on Ukraine funding. But I can see that my views are losing the argument and that I'm in a minority within the party, that HER views are more reflective of party opinion than mine.

whiterock said:

---

That's a lot of fallacies to pack into a single post.

Do you think some of those bills were popular with the base of the party? That maybe they got drowned in swampishness, like the effort to tie border funding to funding for Israel and Ukraine?

The caucus and the base are not synonymous......

You just don't like her style. But an enormous swathe of the base does, because they are highly unhappy with the way business is being conducted. As long as a third or more of the GOP base is unhappy with the way a GOP congress operates, there will be loud voices pandering to it. That's politics. You either do what your base wants you to do, or you will hear about it. You are so tolerant of dissonance on other dynamics. Why is this one so hard for you to accept.

Man, I'm in disagreement with her on Ukraine funding. But I can see that my views are losing the argument and that I'm in a minority within the party, that HER views are more reflective of party opinion than mine.

---

She is not an effective lawmaker, she has done nothing but throw moltovs since being there. She has no legislation and just got smacked down by both the Congress and Trump for her Johnson debacle. She may represent an extreme portion of the GOP but. she has not forwarded anything accept win a few extremist fans like yourself and some others. Don't tell me she represents the Base because you like her, similarly don't tell me she is the Whip. She isnt. If she represented the base, she would be in a leadership role and have support. Not just the gang of 8.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

That's a lot of fallacies to pack into a single post.

Do you think some of those bills were popular with the base of the party? That maybe they got drowned in swampishness, like the effort to tie border funding to funding for Israel and Ukraine?

The caucus and the base are not synonymous......

You just don't like her style. But an enormous swathe of the base does, because they are highly unhappy with the way business is being conducted. As long as a third or more of the GOP base is unhappy with the way a GOP congress operates, there will be loud voices pandering to it. That's politics. You either do what your base wants you to do, or you will hear about it. You are so tolerant of dissonance on other dynamics. Why is this one so hard for you to accept.

Man, I'm in disagreement with her on Ukraine funding. But I can see that my views are losing the argument and that I'm in a minority within the party, that HER views are more reflective of party opinion than mine.

---

She is not an effective lawmaker, she has done nothing but throw moltovs since being there. She has no legislation and just got smacked down by both the Congress and Trump for her Johnson debacle. She may represent an extreme portion of the GOP but. she has not forwarded anything accept win a few extremist fans like yourself and some others. Don't tell me she represents the Base because you like her, similarly don't tell me she is the Whip. She isnt. If she represented the base, she would be in a leadership role and have support. Not just the gang of 8.

---

Bad argument. Most members of House and Senate are not lawmakers. Just do the math. In any given session, there are 600-1200 bills passed. That works out to about 1-2 bills per session, per member. In reality, two thirds of reps get no legislation passed. Lots of factors in that beyond ability (interests, constituency, seniority, committee chairmanship power, affiliated with party in/out of power, etc.....). Data from the 117th:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2022/house/bills-enacted-ti
(note disclaimer in orange box).

152 reps = 0 bills
115 reps = 1 bill
83 reps = 2 bills
42 = 3
17 = 4
10 = 5
7 = 6
3 = 7
2 = 8
3 = 9
1 = 11
1 = 13

Debate on the bills is as important as the drafting of them, and on that score, she is quite effective. She focuses attention on legislation of interest to most Republicans. And on that score, her views on most issues are squarely in the mainstream of the GOP, majoritarian stuff. It's her style you don't like. But an awful lot of other people do. Cheerleading for/against legislation is an important part of the job, and she's very good at it for her constituencies.

That part in bold is really silly. The fundamental dynamic we're talking about is that GOP leadership has traditionally NOT represented well the views of the base.....that the reason we have the Freedom Caucus in the first place- to hold moderate leadership accountable for not pushing hard enough on the platform agenda. And then there's just your lack of understanding of how the House works. Leadership traditionally goes to reps who raise the most money. There are big chalkboards up 24/7, real-time standings on fundraising leaders. Relatively few districts have enough fundraising base to support it's own congressional election. So that fundraising inevitably comes from places like mega-donors, industry lobbyists, interest PACs across the spectrum, etc.... Very hard to make leadership with small donors from the base. You have to take your campaign nationwide and make news breaking glass. To make it to leadership, you have to take the swampy route....raising from all the special interest PACs, most of which are not part of the conservative movement.

Dude, if we had conservative legislation actually getting passed, there'd be no oxygen for a Freedom Caucus.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

That's a lot of fallacies to pack into a single post.

Do you think some of those bills were popular with the base of the party? That maybe they got drowned in swampishness, like the effort to tie border funding to funding for Israel and Ukraine?

The caucus and the base are not synonymous......

You just don't like her style. But an enormous swathe of the base does, because they are highly unhappy with the way business is being conducted. As long as a third or more of the GOP base is unhappy with the way a GOP congress operates, there will be loud voices pandering to it. That's politics. You either do what your base wants you to do, or you will hear about it. You are so tolerant of dissonance on other dynamics. Why is this one so hard for you to accept.

Man, I'm in disagreement with her on Ukraine funding. But I can see that my views are losing the argument and that I'm in a minority within the party, that HER views are more reflective of party opinion than mine.

---

She is not an effective lawmaker, she has done nothing but throw moltovs since being there. She has no legislation and just got smacked down by both the Congress and Trump for her Johnson debacle. She may represent an extreme portion of the GOP but. she has not forwarded anything accept win a few extremist fans like yourself and some others. Don't tell me she represents the Base because you like her, similarly don't tell me she is the Whip. She isnt. If she represented the base, she would be in a leadership role and have support. Not just the gang of 8.

---

Bad argument. Most members of House and Senate are not lawmakers. Just do the math. In any given session, there are 600-1200 bills passed. That works out to about 1-2 bills per session, per member. In reality, two thirds of reps get no legislation passed. Lots of factors in that beyond ability (interests, constituency, seniority, committee chairmanship power, affiliated with party in/out of power, etc.....). Data from the 117th:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2022/house/bills-enacted-ti
(note disclaimer in orange box).

152 reps = 0 bills
115 reps = 1 bill
83 reps = 2 bills
42 = 3
17 = 4
10 = 5
7 = 6
3 = 7
2 = 8
3 = 9
1 = 11
1 = 13

Debate on the bills is as important as the drafting of them, and on that score, she is quite effective. She focuses attention on legislation of interest to most Republicans. And on that score, her views on most issues are squarely in the mainstream of the GOP, majoritarian stuff. It's her style you don't like. But an awful lot of other people do. Cheerleading for/against legislation is an important part of the job, and she's very good at it for her constituencies.

That part in bold is really silly. The fundamental dynamic we're talking about is that GOP leadership has traditionally NOT represented well the views of the base.....that the reason we have the Freedom Caucus in the first place- to hold moderate leadership accountable for not pushing hard enough on the platform agenda. And then there's just your lack of understanding of how the House works. Leadership traditionally goes to reps who raise the most money. There are big chalkboards up 24/7, real-time standings on fundraising leaders. Relatively few districts have enough fundraising base to support it's own congressional election. So that fundraising inevitably comes from places like mega-donors, industry lobbyists, interest PACs across the spectrum, etc.... Very hard to make leadership with small donors from the base. You have to take your campaign nationwide and make news breaking glass. To make it to leadership, you have to take the swampy route....raising from all the special interest PACs, most of which are not part of the conservative movement.

Dude, if we had conservative legislation actually getting passed, there'd be no oxygen for a Freedom Caucus.

---

Tell you what, you are right. MTG is the Base. She is a stellar Congresswoman. Her positions will save the Nation. She is the Whip and her job is not to move Legislation or create laws. Ok? You are right. You convinced me. Long Live MTG...

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Don't be the jackass.

---

LOL. MTG is a carpenter?

---

moreso than you, my friend.

Can you tell me a policy issue where you have sharp disagreement with her?

---

If she agrees with me on policy, does that make her an moderate?

---

so you agree that your aversion to her is about tactics rather than policy?

---

So you agree that my policies are as conservative as hers?

---

Have I not maintained consistently that moderate distaste for conservative activism is usually mostly about strategy and tactics rather than about the particulars of policy planks?

---

There is no way you can do nothing about MTG.

---

LOL. It'd be pretty easy. Just quit attacking her and start working with her. Give. Her. Something. That's what politics is, right....cutting deals with opponents?

Moderates say they will work with anyone, but that's a lie. They can't stand to have to work with conservatives.

---

WHAT!!!! After all your talk on RINOS, Neos, UniParty and how moderate compromise is the sign of weakness. Your advice is to give her what she wants?? How about Trump get a leash on his attack dog.

---

That's what moderates do, right?....compromise, right? Why not start with her...FIRST? Having her on board makes you stronger, not weaker.

She's not exactly an attack dog, but why would any Republican leader who had one leash it up? The GOP attack dog is the Democrats' problem. They better make it happy or there'll be pain. That's the way the Dems use the squad, and they get their agenda implemented by miles at a time. Why can't we do the same thing?
(this is what I'm talking about when I say "move the Overton Window.") Dems stand with the Squad, put big slabs of things they like into legislation, knowing the GOP moderates will support some of it in the name of bipartisanship. And typically, it does work out that way. GOP moderates crossing the aisle to vote for stuff they know the base will not like, then blaming the GOP base for being unreasonable when they do complain about it.

---

All for it, she is the way. MTG is a godsend. You are so right...

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

That's a lot of fallacies to pack into a single post.

Do you think some of those bills were popular with the base of the party? That maybe they got drowned in swampishness, like the effort to tie border funding to funding for Israel and Ukraine?

The caucus and the base are not synonymous......

You just don't like her style. But an enormous swathe of the base does, because they are highly unhappy with the way business is being conducted. As long as a third or more of the GOP base is unhappy with the way a GOP congress operates, there will be loud voices pandering to it. That's politics. You either do what your base wants you to do, or you will hear about it. You are so tolerant of dissonance on other dynamics. Why is this one so hard for you to accept.

Man, I'm in disagreement with her on Ukraine funding. But I can see that my views are losing the argument and that I'm in a minority within the party, that HER views are more reflective of party opinion than mine.

---

She is not an effective lawmaker, she has done nothing but throw moltovs since being there. She has no legislation and just got smacked down by both the Congress and Trump for her Johnson debacle. She may represent an extreme portion of the GOP but. she has not forwarded anything accept win a few extremist fans like yourself and some others. Don't tell me she represents the Base because you like her, similarly don't tell me she is the Whip. She isnt. If she represented the base, she would be in a leadership role and have support. Not just the gang of 8.

---

Bad argument. Most members of House and Senate are not lawmakers. Just do the math. In any given session, there are 600-1200 bills passed. That works out to about 1-2 bills per session, per member. In reality, two thirds of reps get no legislation passed. Lots of factors in that beyond ability (interests, constituency, seniority, committee chairmanship power, affiliated with party in/out of power, etc.....). Data from the 117th:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2022/house/bills-enacted-ti
(note disclaimer in orange box).

152 reps = 0 bills
115 reps = 1 bill
83 reps = 2 bills
42 = 3
17 = 4
10 = 5
7 = 6
3 = 7
2 = 8
3 = 9
1 = 11
1 = 13

Debate on the bills is as important as the drafting of them, and on that score, she is quite effective. She focuses attention on legislation of interest to most Republicans. And on that score, her views on most issues are squarely in the mainstream of the GOP, majoritarian stuff. It's her style you don't like. But an awful lot of other people do. Cheerleading for/against legislation is an important part of the job, and she's very good at it for her constituencies.

That part in bold is really silly. The fundamental dynamic we're talking about is that GOP leadership has traditionally NOT represented well the views of the base.....that the reason we have the Freedom Caucus in the first place- to hold moderate leadership accountable for not pushing hard enough on the platform agenda. And then there's just your lack of understanding of how the House works. Leadership traditionally goes to reps who raise the most money. There are big chalkboards up 24/7, real-time standings on fundraising leaders. Relatively few districts have enough fundraising base to support it's own congressional election. So that fundraising inevitably comes from places like mega-donors, industry lobbyists, interest PACs across the spectrum, etc.... Very hard to make leadership with small donors from the base. You have to take your campaign nationwide and make news breaking glass. To make it to leadership, you have to take the swampy route....raising from all the special interest PACs, most of which are not part of the conservative movement.

Dude, if we had conservative legislation actually getting passed, there'd be no oxygen for a Freedom Caucus.

---

Tell you what, you are right. MTG is the Base. She is a stellar Congresswoman. Her positions will save the Nation. She is the Whip and her job is not to move Legislation or create laws. Ok? You are right. You convinced me. Long Live MTG...

---

Undoubtedly the leader of the GOP congressional delegation and she represents the majority of the Republican Party under Trump.

Osodecentx said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

That's a lot of fallacies to pack into a single post.

Do you think some of those bills were popular with the base of the party? That maybe they got drowned in swampishness, like the effort to tie border funding to funding for Israel and Ukraine?

The caucus and the base are not synonymous......

You just don't like her style. But an enormous swathe of the base does, because they are highly unhappy with the way business is being conducted. As long as a third or more of the GOP base is unhappy with the way a GOP congress operates, there will be loud voices pandering to it. That's politics. You either do what your base wants you to do, or you will hear about it. You are so tolerant of dissonance on other dynamics. Why is this one so hard for you to accept.

Man, I'm in disagreement with her on Ukraine funding. But I can see that my views are losing the argument and that I'm in a minority within the party, that HER views are more reflective of party opinion than mine.

---

She is not an effective lawmaker, she has done nothing but throw moltovs since being there. She has no legislation and just got smacked down by both the Congress and Trump for her Johnson debacle. She may represent an extreme portion of the GOP but. she has not forwarded anything accept win a few extremist fans like yourself and some others. Don't tell me she represents the Base because you like her, similarly don't tell me she is the Whip. She isnt. If she represented the base, she would be in a leadership role and have support. Not just the gang of 8.

---

Bad argument. Most members of House and Senate are not lawmakers. Just do the math. In any given session, there are 600-1200 bills passed. That works out to about 1-2 bills per session, per member. In reality, two thirds of reps get no legislation passed. Lots of factors in that beyond ability (interests, constituency, seniority, committee chairmanship power, affiliated with party in/out of power, etc.....). Data from the 117th:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2022/house/bills-enacted-ti
(note disclaimer in orange box).

152 reps = 0 bills
115 reps = 1 bill
83 reps = 2 bills
42 = 3
17 = 4
10 = 5
7 = 6
3 = 7
2 = 8
3 = 9
1 = 11
1 = 13

Debate on the bills is as important as the drafting of them, and on that score, she is quite effective. She focuses attention on legislation of interest to most Republicans. And on that score, her views on most issues are squarely in the mainstream of the GOP, majoritarian stuff. It's her style you don't like. But an awful lot of other people do. Cheerleading for/against legislation is an important part of the job, and she's very good at it for her constituencies.

That part in bold is really silly. The fundamental dynamic we're talking about is that GOP leadership has traditionally NOT represented well the views of the base.....that the reason we have the Freedom Caucus in the first place- to hold moderate leadership accountable for not pushing hard enough on the platform agenda. And then there's just your lack of understanding of how the House works. Leadership traditionally goes to reps who raise the most money. There are big chalkboards up 24/7, real-time standings on fundraising leaders. Relatively few districts have enough fundraising base to support it's own congressional election. So that fundraising inevitably comes from places like mega-donors, industry lobbyists, interest PACs across the spectrum, etc.... Very hard to make leadership with small donors from the base. You have to take your campaign nationwide and make news breaking glass. To make it to leadership, you have to take the swampy route....raising from all the special interest PACs, most of which are not part of the conservative movement.

Dude, if we had conservative legislation actually getting passed, there'd be no oxygen for a Freedom Caucus.

---

Tell you what, you are right. MTG is the Base. She is a stellar Congresswoman. Her positions will save the Nation. She is the Whip and her job is not to move Legislation or create laws. Ok? You are right. You convinced me. Long Live MTG...

---

Undoubtedly the leader of the GOP congressional delegation and she represents the majority of the Republican Party under Trump.

---

We are good. You only want to hear how right you are. So, you are right. If you are going to defend MTG as a good, responsible and sane Legislature than you are no better than the Dems pushing the Squad. There is no need to talk. That says it all. You are MAGA through and through and really don't want to discuss positions or the total Congress.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

That's a lot of fallacies to pack into a single post.

Do you think some of those bills were popular with the base of the party? That maybe they got drowned in swampishness, like the effort to tie border funding to funding for Israel and Ukraine?

The caucus and the base are not synonymous......

You just don't like her style. But an enormous swathe of the base does, because they are highly unhappy with the way business is being conducted. As long as a third or more of the GOP base is unhappy with the way a GOP congress operates, there will be loud voices pandering to it. That's politics. You either do what your base wants you to do, or you will hear about it. You are so tolerant of dissonance on other dynamics. Why is this one so hard for you to accept.

Man, I'm in disagreement with her on Ukraine funding. But I can see that my views are losing the argument and that I'm in a minority within the party, that HER views are more reflective of party opinion than mine.

---

She is not an effective lawmaker, she has done nothing but throw moltovs since being there. She has no legislation and just got smacked down by both the Congress and Trump for her Johnson debacle. She may represent an extreme portion of the GOP but. she has not forwarded anything accept win a few extremist fans like yourself and some others. Don't tell me she represents the Base because you like her, similarly don't tell me she is the Whip. She isnt. If she represented the base, she would be in a leadership role and have support. Not just the gang of 8.

---

Bad argument. Most members of House and Senate are not lawmakers. Just do the math. In any given session, there are 600-1200 bills passed. That works out to about 1-2 bills per session, per member. In reality, two thirds of reps get no legislation passed. Lots of factors in that beyond ability (interests, constituency, seniority, committee chairmanship power, affiliated with party in/out of power, etc.....). Data from the 117th:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2022/house/bills-enacted-ti
(note disclaimer in orange box).

152 reps = 0 bills
115 reps = 1 bill
83 reps = 2 bills
42 = 3
17 = 4
10 = 5
7 = 6
3 = 7
2 = 8
3 = 9
1 = 11
1 = 13

Debate on the bills is as important as the drafting of them, and on that score, she is quite effective. She focuses attention on legislation of interest to most Republicans. And on that score, her views on most issues are squarely in the mainstream of the GOP, majoritarian stuff. It's her style you don't like. But an awful lot of other people do. Cheerleading for/against legislation is an important part of the job, and she's very good at it for her constituencies.

That part in bold is really silly. The fundamental dynamic we're talking about is that GOP leadership has traditionally NOT represented well the views of the base.....that the reason we have the Freedom Caucus in the first place- to hold moderate leadership accountable for not pushing hard enough on the platform agenda. And then there's just your lack of understanding of how the House works. Leadership traditionally goes to reps who raise the most money. There are big chalkboards up 24/7, real-time standings on fundraising leaders. Relatively few districts have enough fundraising base to support it's own congressional election. So that fundraising inevitably comes from places like mega-donors, industry lobbyists, interest PACs across the spectrum, etc.... Very hard to make leadership with small donors from the base. You have to take your campaign nationwide and make news breaking glass. To make it to leadership, you have to take the swampy route....raising from all the special interest PACs, most of which are not part of the conservative movement.

Dude, if we had conservative legislation actually getting passed, there'd be no oxygen for a Freedom Caucus.

---

Tell you what, you are right. MTG is the Base. She is a stellar Congresswoman. Her positions will save the Nation. She is the Whip and her job is not to move Legislation or create laws. Ok? You are right. You convinced me. Long Live MTG...

---

Undoubtedly the leader of the GOP congressional delegation and she represents the majority of the Republican Party under Trump.

---

We are good. You only want to hear how right you are. So, you are right. If you are going to defend MTG as a good, responsible and sane Legislature than you are no better than the Dems pushing the Squad. There is no need to talk. That says it all. You are MAGA through and through and really don't want to discuss positions or the total Congress.

---

Everyone knowsTrump won in 2020

Osodecentx said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

That's a lot of fallacies to pack into a single post.

Do you think some of those bills were popular with the base of the party? That maybe they got drowned in swampishness, like the effort to tie border funding to funding for Israel and Ukraine?

The caucus and the base are not synonymous......

You just don't like her style. But an enormous swathe of the base does, because they are highly unhappy with the way business is being conducted. As long as a third or more of the GOP base is unhappy with the way a GOP congress operates, there will be loud voices pandering to it. That's politics. You either do what your base wants you to do, or you will hear about it. You are so tolerant of dissonance on other dynamics. Why is this one so hard for you to accept.

Man, I'm in disagreement with her on Ukraine funding. But I can see that my views are losing the argument and that I'm in a minority within the party, that HER views are more reflective of party opinion than mine.

---

She is not an effective lawmaker, she has done nothing but throw moltovs since being there. She has no legislation and just got smacked down by both the Congress and Trump for her Johnson debacle. She may represent an extreme portion of the GOP but. she has not forwarded anything accept win a few extremist fans like yourself and some others. Don't tell me she represents the Base because you like her, similarly don't tell me she is the Whip. She isnt. If she represented the base, she would be in a leadership role and have support. Not just the gang of 8.

---

Bad argument. Most members of House and Senate are not lawmakers. Just do the math. In any given session, there are 600-1200 bills passed. That works out to about 1-2 bills per session, per member. In reality, two thirds of reps get no legislation passed. Lots of factors in that beyond ability (interests, constituency, seniority, committee chairmanship power, affiliated with party in/out of power, etc.....). Data from the 117th:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2022/house/bills-enacted-ti
(note disclaimer in orange box).

152 reps = 0 bills
115 reps = 1 bill
83 reps = 2 bills
42 = 3
17 = 4
10 = 5
7 = 6
3 = 7
2 = 8
3 = 9
1 = 11
1 = 13

Debate on the bills is as important as the drafting of them, and on that score, she is quite effective. She focuses attention on legislation of interest to most Republicans. And on that score, her views on most issues are squarely in the mainstream of the GOP, majoritarian stuff. It's her style you don't like. But an awful lot of other people do. Cheerleading for/against legislation is an important part of the job, and she's very good at it for her constituencies.

That part in bold is really silly. The fundamental dynamic we're talking about is that GOP leadership has traditionally NOT represented well the views of the base.....that the reason we have the Freedom Caucus in the first place- to hold moderate leadership accountable for not pushing hard enough on the platform agenda. And then there's just your lack of understanding of how the House works. Leadership traditionally goes to reps who raise the most money. There are big chalkboards up 24/7, real-time standings on fundraising leaders. Relatively few districts have enough fundraising base to support it's own congressional election. So that fundraising inevitably comes from places like mega-donors, industry lobbyists, interest PACs across the spectrum, etc.... Very hard to make leadership with small donors from the base. You have to take your campaign nationwide and make news breaking glass. To make it to leadership, you have to take the swampy route....raising from all the special interest PACs, most of which are not part of the conservative movement.

Dude, if we had conservative legislation actually getting passed, there'd be no oxygen for a Freedom Caucus.

---

Tell you what, you are right. MTG is the Base. She is a stellar Congresswoman. Her positions will save the Nation. She is the Whip and her job is not to move Legislation or create laws. Ok? You are right. You convinced me. Long Live MTG...

---

Undoubtedly the leader of the GOP congressional delegation and she represents the majority of the Republican Party under Trump.

---

We are good. You only want to hear how right you are. So, you are right. If you are going to defend MTG as a good, responsible and sane Legislature than you are no better than the Dems pushing the Squad. There is no need to talk. That says it all. You are MAGA through and through and really don't want to discuss positions or the total Congress.

---

Everyone knowsTrump won in 2020

---

I can't say that anyone can know that for certain....but its an open question given how close the vote was and how corrupt Philly, Atlanta, Detroit and other Democratic run cities can be.

Biden pulled out a very narrow win by 80k votes in Penn, 12k votes in Georgia, 155k in Michigan, 11k votes in Arizona, 20k votes in Wisconsin

The fact that these margins were so small, the urban Democratic run cities so corrupt, and the fact that they literally stopped the voting count (while Trump as winning) only to see his leads evaporate later....does cast a pale over the election.

Mark Twain asked if there had ever been a free and fair election in Philadelphia...and that was 100+ years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

That's a lot of fallacies to pack into a single post.

Do you think some of those bills were popular with the base of the party? That maybe they got drowned in swampishness, like the effort to tie border funding to funding for Israel and Ukraine?

The caucus and the base are not synonymous......

You just don't like her style. But an enormous swathe of the base does, because they are highly unhappy with the way business is being conducted. As long as a third or more of the GOP base is unhappy with the way a GOP congress operates, there will be loud voices pandering to it. That's politics. You either do what your base wants you to do, or you will hear about it. You are so tolerant of dissonance on other dynamics. Why is this one so hard for you to accept.

Man, I'm in disagreement with her on Ukraine funding. But I can see that my views are losing the argument and that I'm in a minority within the party, that HER views are more reflective of party opinion than mine.

---

She is not an effective lawmaker, she has done nothing but throw moltovs since being there. She has no legislation and just got smacked down by both the Congress and Trump for her Johnson debacle. She may represent an extreme portion of the GOP but. she has not forwarded anything accept win a few extremist fans like yourself and some others. Don't tell me she represents the Base because you like her, similarly don't tell me she is the Whip. She isnt. If she represented the base, she would be in a leadership role and have support. Not just the gang of 8.

---

Bad argument. Most members of House and Senate are not lawmakers. Just do the math. In any given session, there are 600-1200 bills passed. That works out to about 1-2 bills per session, per member. In reality, two thirds of reps get no legislation passed. Lots of factors in that beyond ability (interests, constituency, seniority, committee chairmanship power, affiliated with party in/out of power, etc.....). Data from the 117th:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2022/house/bills-enacted-ti
(note disclaimer in orange box).

152 reps = 0 bills
115 reps = 1 bill
83 reps = 2 bills
42 = 3
17 = 4
10 = 5
7 = 6
3 = 7
2 = 8
3 = 9
1 = 11
1 = 13

Debate on the bills is as important as the drafting of them, and on that score, she is quite effective. She focuses attention on legislation of interest to most Republicans. And on that score, her views on most issues are squarely in the mainstream of the GOP, majoritarian stuff. It's her style you don't like. But an awful lot of other people do. Cheerleading for/against legislation is an important part of the job, and she's very good at it for her constituencies.

That part in bold is really silly. The fundamental dynamic we're talking about is that GOP leadership has traditionally NOT represented well the views of the base.....that the reason we have the Freedom Caucus in the first place- to hold moderate leadership accountable for not pushing hard enough on the platform agenda. And then there's just your lack of understanding of how the House works. Leadership traditionally goes to reps who raise the most money. There are big chalkboards up 24/7, real-time standings on fundraising leaders. Relatively few districts have enough fundraising base to support it's own congressional election. So that fundraising inevitably comes from places like mega-donors, industry lobbyists, interest PACs across the spectrum, etc.... Very hard to make leadership with small donors from the base. You have to take your campaign nationwide and make news breaking glass. To make it to leadership, you have to take the swampy route....raising from all the special interest PACs, most of which are not part of the conservative movement.

Dude, if we had conservative legislation actually getting passed, there'd be no oxygen for a Freedom Caucus.

---

Tell you what, you are right. MTG is the Base. She is a stellar Congresswoman. Her positions will save the Nation. She is the Whip and her job is not to move Legislation or create laws. Ok? You are right. You convinced me. Long Live MTG...

---

Undoubtedly the leader of the GOP congressional delegation and she represents the majority of the Republican Party under Trump.

---

We are good. You only want to hear how right you are. So, you are right. If you are going to defend MTG as a good, responsible and sane Legislature than you are no better than the Dems pushing the Squad. There is no need to talk. That says it all. You are MAGA through and through and really don't want to discuss positions or the total Congress.

---

Everyone knowsTrump won in 2020

---

I can't say that anyone can know that for certain....but its an open question given how close the vote was and how corrupt Philly, Atlanta, Detroit and other Democratic run cities can be.

Biden pulled out a very narrow win by 80k votes in Penn, 12k votes in Georgia, 155k in Michigan, 11k votes in Arizona, 20k votes in Wisconsin

The fact that these margins were so small, the urban Democratic run cities so corrupt, and the fact that they literally stopped the voting count (while Trump as winning) only to see his leads evaporate later....does cast a pale over the election.

Mark Twain asked if there had ever been a free and fair election in Philadelphia...and that was 100+ years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election

---

Even tossing all that aside, the fact that a federal agency pressured social media to censor legitimate news and ban or shadow ban people sharing that news, coupled with the fact they got former members of the intel community to put out (and sign) a carefully worded letter to influence people over that news, shows that the election was not free nor fair.

With that said, the FBI butting in during the 2016 election, wasn't fair either. Of course, their "investigation" I feel, was designed to minify Clinton's lawless actions and her disregard for national security - Comey just screwed it all up - well, because he's an idiot.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

That's a lot of fallacies to pack into a single post.

Do you think some of those bills were popular with the base of the party? That maybe they got drowned in swampishness, like the effort to tie border funding to funding for Israel and Ukraine?

The caucus and the base are not synonymous......

You just don't like her style. But an enormous swathe of the base does, because they are highly unhappy with the way business is being conducted. As long as a third or more of the GOP base is unhappy with the way a GOP congress operates, there will be loud voices pandering to it. That's politics. You either do what your base wants you to do, or you will hear about it. You are so tolerant of dissonance on other dynamics. Why is this one so hard for you to accept.

Man, I'm in disagreement with her on Ukraine funding. But I can see that my views are losing the argument and that I'm in a minority within the party, that HER views are more reflective of party opinion than mine.

---

She is not an effective lawmaker, she has done nothing but throw moltovs since being there. She has no legislation and just got smacked down by both the Congress and Trump for her Johnson debacle. She may represent an extreme portion of the GOP but. she has not forwarded anything accept win a few extremist fans like yourself and some others. Don't tell me she represents the Base because you like her, similarly don't tell me she is the Whip. She isnt. If she represented the base, she would be in a leadership role and have support. Not just the gang of 8.

---

Bad argument. Most members of House and Senate are not lawmakers. Just do the math. In any given session, there are 600-1200 bills passed. That works out to about 1-2 bills per session, per member. In reality, two thirds of reps get no legislation passed. Lots of factors in that beyond ability (interests, constituency, seniority, committee chairmanship power, affiliated with party in/out of power, etc.....). Data from the 117th:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2022/house/bills-enacted-ti
(note disclaimer in orange box).

152 reps = 0 bills
115 reps = 1 bill
83 reps = 2 bills
42 = 3
17 = 4
10 = 5
7 = 6
3 = 7
2 = 8
3 = 9
1 = 11
1 = 13

Debate on the bills is as important as the drafting of them, and on that score, she is quite effective. She focuses attention on legislation of interest to most Republicans. And on that score, her views on most issues are squarely in the mainstream of the GOP, majoritarian stuff. It's her style you don't like. But an awful lot of other people do. Cheerleading for/against legislation is an important part of the job, and she's very good at it for her constituencies.

That part in bold is really silly. The fundamental dynamic we're talking about is that GOP leadership has traditionally NOT represented well the views of the base.....that the reason we have the Freedom Caucus in the first place- to hold moderate leadership accountable for not pushing hard enough on the platform agenda. And then there's just your lack of understanding of how the House works. Leadership traditionally goes to reps who raise the most money. There are big chalkboards up 24/7, real-time standings on fundraising leaders. Relatively few districts have enough fundraising base to support it's own congressional election. So that fundraising inevitably comes from places like mega-donors, industry lobbyists, interest PACs across the spectrum, etc.... Very hard to make leadership with small donors from the base. You have to take your campaign nationwide and make news breaking glass. To make it to leadership, you have to take the swampy route....raising from all the special interest PACs, most of which are not part of the conservative movement.

Dude, if we had conservative legislation actually getting passed, there'd be no oxygen for a Freedom Caucus.

---

Tell you what, you are right. MTG is the Base. She is a stellar Congresswoman. Her positions will save the Nation. She is the Whip and her job is not to move Legislation or create laws. Ok? You are right. You convinced me. Long Live MTG...

---

Undoubtedly the leader of the GOP congressional delegation and she represents the majority of the Republican Party under Trump.

---

We are good. You only want to hear how right you are. So, you are right. If you are going to defend MTG as a good, responsible and sane Legislature than you are no better than the Dems pushing the Squad. There is no need to talk. That says it all. You are MAGA through and through and really don't want to discuss positions or the total Congress.

---

Everyone knowsTrump won in 2020

---

I can't say that anyone can know that for certain....but its an open question given how close the vote was and how corrupt Philly, Atlanta, Detroit and other Democratic run cities can be.

Biden pulled out a very narrow win by 80k votes in Penn, 12k votes in Georgia, 155k in Michigan, 11k votes in Arizona, 20k votes in Wisconsin

The fact that these margins were so small, the urban Democratic run cities so corrupt, and the fact that they literally stopped the voting count (while Trump as winning) only to see his leads evaporate later....does cast a pale over the election.

Mark Twain asked if there had ever been a free and fair election in Philadelphia...and that was 100+ years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election

---

Yet, nothing has followed to show fraud stole the election. Nothing but speculation. Even the GOP has not come up with anything. Not even enough to impeach Biden.

SO, the answer can't be that there is not enough evidence. It has to be that there is more forces at work. I introduce you to the UniParty. The NeoCons were not enough. So, now we have the NeoCons working with the Dems to make sure that the truth of the 2020 election remains buried. So, now we have the UniParty.

What will they come up with next? Now those on here that don't agree are Liberals, Dems and Progressives. Why? The logic put forward is that if you have not defending the MAGA line, you must be a Dem. This is all Steve Bannon/Goebbels tactics. Either you agree or there is something wrong with you and let's look into you... The latest is MTG, who they are pushing as normal mainstream, representing the Base. She is a QAnon whack job. Yet, the latest is that she is the soul of the Party representing the Base???? The symbolic Whip?? This is all orchestrated... Hell, knowing that crowd she may be the next HSA Director or Dept of Interior...

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

That's a lot of fallacies to pack into a single post.

Do you think some of those bills were popular with the base of the party? That maybe they got drowned in swampishness, like the effort to tie border funding to funding for Israel and Ukraine?

The caucus and the base are not synonymous......

You just don't like her style. But an enormous swathe of the base does, because they are highly unhappy with the way business is being conducted. As long as a third or more of the GOP base is unhappy with the way a GOP congress operates, there will be loud voices pandering to it. That's politics. You either do what your base wants you to do, or you will hear about it. You are so tolerant of dissonance on other dynamics. Why is this one so hard for you to accept.

Man, I'm in disagreement with her on Ukraine funding. But I can see that my views are losing the argument and that I'm in a minority within the party, that HER views are more reflective of party opinion than mine.

---

She is not an effective lawmaker, she has done nothing but throw moltovs since being there. She has no legislation and just got smacked down by both the Congress and Trump for her Johnson debacle. She may represent an extreme portion of the GOP but. she has not forwarded anything accept win a few extremist fans like yourself and some others. Don't tell me she represents the Base because you like her, similarly don't tell me she is the Whip. She isnt. If she represented the base, she would be in a leadership role and have support. Not just the gang of 8.

---

Bad argument. Most members of House and Senate are not lawmakers. Just do the math. In any given session, there are 600-1200 bills passed. That works out to about 1-2 bills per session, per member. In reality, two thirds of reps get no legislation passed. Lots of factors in that beyond ability (interests, constituency, seniority, committee chairmanship power, affiliated with party in/out of power, etc.....). Data from the 117th:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2022/house/bills-enacted-ti
(note disclaimer in orange box).

152 reps = 0 bills
115 reps = 1 bill
83 reps = 2 bills
42 = 3
17 = 4
10 = 5
7 = 6
3 = 7
2 = 8
3 = 9
1 = 11
1 = 13

Debate on the bills is as important as the drafting of them, and on that score, she is quite effective. She focuses attention on legislation of interest to most Republicans. And on that score, her views on most issues are squarely in the mainstream of the GOP, majoritarian stuff. It's her style you don't like. But an awful lot of other people do. Cheerleading for/against legislation is an important part of the job, and she's very good at it for her constituencies.

That part in bold is really silly. The fundamental dynamic we're talking about is that GOP leadership has traditionally NOT represented well the views of the base.....that the reason we have the Freedom Caucus in the first place- to hold moderate leadership accountable for not pushing hard enough on the platform agenda. And then there's just your lack of understanding of how the House works. Leadership traditionally goes to reps who raise the most money. There are big chalkboards up 24/7, real-time standings on fundraising leaders. Relatively few districts have enough fundraising base to support it's own congressional election. So that fundraising inevitably comes from places like mega-donors, industry lobbyists, interest PACs across the spectrum, etc.... Very hard to make leadership with small donors from the base. You have to take your campaign nationwide and make news breaking glass. To make it to leadership, you have to take the swampy route....raising from all the special interest PACs, most of which are not part of the conservative movement.

Dude, if we had conservative legislation actually getting passed, there'd be no oxygen for a Freedom Caucus.

---

Tell you what, you are right. MTG is the Base. She is a stellar Congresswoman. Her positions will save the Nation. She is the Whip and her job is not to move Legislation or create laws. Ok? You are right. You convinced me. Long Live MTG...

---

Undoubtedly the leader of the GOP congressional delegation and she represents the majority of the Republican Party under Trump.

---

We are good. You only want to hear how right you are. So, you are right. If you are going to defend MTG as a good, responsible and sane Legislature than you are no better than the Dems pushing the Squad. There is no need to talk. That says it all. You are MAGA through and through and really don't want to discuss positions or the total Congress.

---

Everyone knowsTrump won in 2020

---

I can't say that anyone can know that for certain....but its an open question given how close the vote was and how corrupt Philly, Atlanta, Detroit and other Democratic run cities can be.

Biden pulled out a very narrow win by 80k votes in Penn, 12k votes in Georgia, 155k in Michigan, 11k votes in Arizona, 20k votes in Wisconsin

The fact that these margins were so small, the urban Democratic run cities so corrupt, and the fact that they literally stopped the voting count (while Trump as winning) only to see his leads evaporate later....does cast a pale over the election.

Mark Twain asked if there had ever been a free and fair election in Philadelphia...and that was 100+ years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election

---

Yet, nothing has followed to show fraud stole the election. Nothing but speculation.

---

Which is why I said no one can necessarily prove anything.

Just stinks like rotten fish.

Super small margins in super corrupt cities that have been run by the Democratic party for 70+ years

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

That's a lot of fallacies to pack into a single post.

Do you think some of those bills were popular with the base of the party? That maybe they got drowned in swampishness, like the effort to tie border funding to funding for Israel and Ukraine?

The caucus and the base are not synonymous......

You just don't like her style. But an enormous swathe of the base does, because they are highly unhappy with the way business is being conducted. As long as a third or more of the GOP base is unhappy with the way a GOP congress operates, there will be loud voices pandering to it. That's politics. You either do what your base wants you to do, or you will hear about it. You are so tolerant of dissonance on other dynamics. Why is this one so hard for you to accept.

Man, I'm in disagreement with her on Ukraine funding. But I can see that my views are losing the argument and that I'm in a minority within the party, that HER views are more reflective of party opinion than mine.

---

She is not an effective lawmaker, she has done nothing but throw moltovs since being there. She has no legislation and just got smacked down by both the Congress and Trump for her Johnson debacle. She may represent an extreme portion of the GOP but. she has not forwarded anything accept win a few extremist fans like yourself and some others. Don't tell me she represents the Base because you like her, similarly don't tell me she is the Whip. She isnt. If she represented the base, she would be in a leadership role and have support. Not just the gang of 8.

---

Bad argument. Most members of House and Senate are not lawmakers. Just do the math. In any given session, there are 600-1200 bills passed. That works out to about 1-2 bills per session, per member. In reality, two thirds of reps get no legislation passed. Lots of factors in that beyond ability (interests, constituency, seniority, committee chairmanship power, affiliated with party in/out of power, etc.....). Data from the 117th:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2022/house/bills-enacted-ti
(note disclaimer in orange box).

152 reps = 0 bills
115 reps = 1 bill
83 reps = 2 bills
42 = 3
17 = 4
10 = 5
7 = 6
3 = 7
2 = 8
3 = 9
1 = 11
1 = 13

Debate on the bills is as important as the drafting of them, and on that score, she is quite effective. She focuses attention on legislation of interest to most Republicans. And on that score, her views on most issues are squarely in the mainstream of the GOP, majoritarian stuff. It's her style you don't like. But an awful lot of other people do. Cheerleading for/against legislation is an important part of the job, and she's very good at it for her constituencies.

That part in bold is really silly. The fundamental dynamic we're talking about is that GOP leadership has traditionally NOT represented well the views of the base.....that the reason we have the Freedom Caucus in the first place- to hold moderate leadership accountable for not pushing hard enough on the platform agenda. And then there's just your lack of understanding of how the House works. Leadership traditionally goes to reps who raise the most money. There are big chalkboards up 24/7, real-time standings on fundraising leaders. Relatively few districts have enough fundraising base to support it's own congressional election. So that fundraising inevitably comes from places like mega-donors, industry lobbyists, interest PACs across the spectrum, etc.... Very hard to make leadership with small donors from the base. You have to take your campaign nationwide and make news breaking glass. To make it to leadership, you have to take the swampy route....raising from all the special interest PACs, most of which are not part of the conservative movement.

Dude, if we had conservative legislation actually getting passed, there'd be no oxygen for a Freedom Caucus.

---

Tell you what, you are right. MTG is the Base. She is a stellar Congresswoman. Her positions will save the Nation. She is the Whip and her job is not to move Legislation or create laws. Ok? You are right. You convinced me. Long Live MTG...

---

Undoubtedly the leader of the GOP congressional delegation and she represents the majority of the Republican Party under Trump.

---

We are good. You only want to hear how right you are. So, you are right. If you are going to defend MTG as a good, responsible and sane Legislature than you are no better than the Dems pushing the Squad. There is no need to talk. That says it all. You are MAGA through and through and really don't want to discuss positions or the total Congress.

---

Everyone knowsTrump won in 2020

---

I can't say that anyone can know that for certain....but its an open question given how close the vote was and how corrupt Philly, Atlanta, Detroit and other Democratic run cities can be.

Biden pulled out a very narrow win by 80k votes in Penn, 12k votes in Georgia, 155k in Michigan, 11k votes in Arizona, 20k votes in Wisconsin

The fact that these margins were so small, the urban Democratic run cities so corrupt, and the fact that they literally stopped the voting count (while Trump as winning) only to see his leads evaporate later....does cast a pale over the election.

Mark Twain asked if there had ever been a free and fair election in Philadelphia...and that was 100+ years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election

---

Yet, nothing has followed to show fraud stole the election. Nothing but speculation. Even the GOP has not come up with anything. Not even enough to impeach Biden.

SO, the answer can't be that there is not enough evidence. It has to be that there is more forces at work. I introduce you to the UniParty. The NeoCons were not enough. So, now we have the NeoCons working with the Dems to make sure that the truth of the 2020 election remains buried. So, now we have the UniParty.

What will they come up with next? Now those on here that don't agree are Liberals, Dems and Progressives. Why? The logic put forward is that if you have not defending the MAGA line, you must be a Dem. This is all Steve Bannon/Goebbels tactics. Either you agree or there is something wrong with you and let's look into you... The latest is MTG, who they are pushing as normal mainstream, representing the Base. She is a QAnon whack job. Yet, the latest is that she is the soul of the Party representing the Base???? The symbolic Whip?? This is all orchestrated... Hell, knowing that crowd she may be the next HSA Director or Dept of Interior...

---

https://hereistheevidence.com/

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

That's a lot of fallacies to pack into a single post.

Do you think some of those bills were popular with the base of the party? That maybe they got drowned in swampishness, like the effort to tie border funding to funding for Israel and Ukraine?

The caucus and the base are not synonymous......

You just don't like her style. But an enormous swathe of the base does, because they are highly unhappy with the way business is being conducted. As long as a third or more of the GOP base is unhappy with the way a GOP congress operates, there will be loud voices pandering to it. That's politics. You either do what your base wants you to do, or you will hear about it. You are so tolerant of dissonance on other dynamics. Why is this one so hard for you to accept.

Man, I'm in disagreement with her on Ukraine funding. But I can see that my views are losing the argument and that I'm in a minority within the party, that HER views are more reflective of party opinion than mine.

---

She is not an effective lawmaker, she has done nothing but throw moltovs since being there. She has no legislation and just got smacked down by both the Congress and Trump for her Johnson debacle. She may represent an extreme portion of the GOP but. she has not forwarded anything accept win a few extremist fans like yourself and some others. Don't tell me she represents the Base because you like her, similarly don't tell me she is the Whip. She isnt. If she represented the base, she would be in a leadership role and have support. Not just the gang of 8.

---

Bad argument. Most members of House and Senate are not lawmakers. Just do the math. In any given session, there are 600-1200 bills passed. That works out to about 1-2 bills per session, per member. In reality, two thirds of reps get no legislation passed. Lots of factors in that beyond ability (interests, constituency, seniority, committee chairmanship power, affiliated with party in/out of power, etc.....). Data from the 117th:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2022/house/bills-enacted-ti
(note disclaimer in orange box).

152 reps = 0 bills
115 reps = 1 bill
83 reps = 2 bills
42 = 3
17 = 4
10 = 5
7 = 6
3 = 7
2 = 8
3 = 9
1 = 11
1 = 13

Debate on the bills is as important as the drafting of them, and on that score, she is quite effective. She focuses attention on legislation of interest to most Republicans. And on that score, her views on most issues are squarely in the mainstream of the GOP, majoritarian stuff. It's her style you don't like. But an awful lot of other people do. Cheerleading for/against legislation is an important part of the job, and she's very good at it for her constituencies.

That part in bold is really silly. The fundamental dynamic we're talking about is that GOP leadership has traditionally NOT represented well the views of the base.....that the reason we have the Freedom Caucus in the first place- to hold moderate leadership accountable for not pushing hard enough on the platform agenda. And then there's just your lack of understanding of how the House works. Leadership traditionally goes to reps who raise the most money. There are big chalkboards up 24/7, real-time standings on fundraising leaders. Relatively few districts have enough fundraising base to support it's own congressional election. So that fundraising inevitably comes from places like mega-donors, industry lobbyists, interest PACs across the spectrum, etc.... Very hard to make leadership with small donors from the base. You have to take your campaign nationwide and make news breaking glass. To make it to leadership, you have to take the swampy route....raising from all the special interest PACs, most of which are not part of the conservative movement.

Dude, if we had conservative legislation actually getting passed, there'd be no oxygen for a Freedom Caucus.

---

Tell you what, you are right. MTG is the Base. She is a stellar Congresswoman. Her positions will save the Nation. She is the Whip and her job is not to move Legislation or create laws. Ok? You are right. You convinced me. Long Live MTG...

---

Undoubtedly the leader of the GOP congressional delegation and she represents the majority of the Republican Party under Trump.

---

We are good. You only want to hear how right you are. So, you are right. If you are going to defend MTG as a good, responsible and sane Legislature than you are no better than the Dems pushing the Squad. There is no need to talk. That says it all. You are MAGA through and through and really don't want to discuss positions or the total Congress.

---

Everyone knowsTrump won in 2020

---

I can't say that anyone can know that for certain....but its an open question given how close the vote was and how corrupt Philly, Atlanta, Detroit and other Democratic run cities can be.

Biden pulled out a very narrow win by 80k votes in Penn, 12k votes in Georgia, 155k in Michigan, 11k votes in Arizona, 20k votes in Wisconsin

The fact that these margins were so small, the urban Democratic run cities so corrupt, and the fact that they literally stopped the voting count (while Trump as winning) only to see his leads evaporate later....does cast a pale over the election.

Mark Twain asked if there had ever been a free and fair election in Philadelphia...and that was 100+ years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election

---

Yet, nothing has followed to show fraud stole the election. Nothing but speculation.

---

Which is why I said not would can necessarily prove anything.

Just stinks like rotten fish.

Super small margins in super corrupt cities that have been run by the Democratic party for 70+ years

---

Agree, not directed at you as a person. Talking about you as "us".

Rather than creating some non-existent Cartel that is ruling America and attacking lifelong GOP members and voters. I want to see the GOP having an army of lawyers and observers. The GOP Legislatures making sure that election rules are in place AND enforced. No more Atlanta water main breaks on election night or Detroit making observers leave. Have people in MN and Philly to make sure the vote harvesting is done within State law. If the GOP is not legally armed for Bear on election season it is on them. Fool me once...

We have these war chests, use them on making sure the vote is above board. Use the money on getting a fair election, not Trump's legal fees.