Kevin McCarthy

TravelinMan wrote:These 20 are bat-shit crazy enough it almost makes me feel bad for the other Republicans.  How in the world do people like this get elected?

TravelinMan wrote:These 20 are bat-shit crazy enough it almost makes me feel bad for the other Republicans. How in the world do people like this get elected?

sεяεηιτλ wrote:omg, McCarthy thanking trump is hilarious, he is just straight up gargling his balls. Trump must have been the one holding this thing up until MCCarthy demonstrated loyalty to him or something.
Freaking absurd.

I don't know how to link a CNN video but it's the first video at the top here that plays right now:
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/kevin-mccarthy-voted-house-speaker-01-07-23/index.html

MiamiSpartan wrote:

sεяεηιτλ wrote:omg, McCarthy thanking trump is hilarious, he is just straight up gargling his balls. Trump must have been the one holding this thing up until MCCarthy demonstrated loyalty to him or something.
Freaking absurd.

I don't know how to link a CNN video but it's the first video at the top here that plays right now:
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/kevin-mccarthy-voted-house-speaker-01-07-23/index.html

Trump was actively campaigning for McCarthy (though some say half heartedly) and Gaetz and Boebert both kind of blew Trump off in some comments (and Trumps mouthpiece, Hannity, was attacking Boebert pretty bad, apparently).  Also, there's a picture if Marjorie Taylor Greene trying to hand a phone to Rep Rosendale after he didn't vote for McCarthy in the 14th round last night.  The photo shows that the contact on the phone is "DT".

What a shit show.  And we all pay the price by having the far right nuts of the R party basically in charge.

Trapper Gus wrote:

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

Now the speaker is basically owned by Trump.  Absurd that a private citizen, someone not currently in political position could actively have sway over a big part of our government.  So unamerican.

Dude!

The Republican Party is owned by a handful of Billionaires, which is why when Trump was President and they held both chambers in Congress the only major Act they passed was a huge tax cut for the 0.1%, under threat of those Billionaires pulling all their funding for the party.

Trapper Gus wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
And lobbyists and special interests control the Dems, too.  Let's not pretend that private citizens outside of government don't control pretty much everything in the government.

Yes, however many more of those lobbyists and special interests who control the Democratic Party are in favor of polices that are good for the country and good for the 99%. Few to none of the people who own the Republican Party match that description.

 
Here are the key points of Warren’s plan:
-A lifetime lobbying ban for presidents, vice presidents, members of Congress, federal judges, and Cabinet secretaries.
 -Applying conflict-of-interest laws to the president and vice president, requiring them to place businesses into a blind trust to be sold off. They would also have to place assets that could present a conflict of interest — including real estate — in a blind trust and sell them off.
 -Multi-year lobbying bans for federal employees (both congressional staffers and employees of federal agencies). The span of time would be at least two years and six years for those wishing to become corporate lobbyists.
 -Banning members of Congress and senior congressional staff from serving on corporate boards. The plan would also ban senior administration officials and members of Congress from serving on for-profit boards, no matter if they receive compensation for it or not.
 -Ban lobbyists from all fundraising activities, including political fundraisers or campaign bundling, and strengthen criminal anti-corruption statutes by redefining an “official act” to make politicians unable to accept gifts or payments in exchange for government action.
 -Requiring the IRS to release eight years of tax returns for all presidential and vice-presidential candidates as well as requiring them to release tax returns during each year in office. The IRS would also have to release two years of tax returns for members of Congress, and require them to release tax returns for each lawmaker’s year in office.
 -Banning members of Congress, Cabinet secretaries, federal judges, White House staff, senior congressional staff, and other officials from owning or trading individual stocks while in office.
 -Changing the rulemaking process of federal agencies to severely restrict the ability of corporations or industry to delay or influence rulemaking. Warren’s plan would restrict studies funded by groups with conflict-of-interest problems being considered in the rulemaking process, unless they go under a lengthy peer review.
 -Broadening the definition of a “thing of value” in campaign finance laws to go beyond money. Under the new definition, it could include opposition research from foreign governments.
 -Creating a new independent US Office of Public Integrity, which would enforce the nation’s ethics laws and investigate any potential violations. The office would also try to strengthen open records laws, making records more easily accessible to the public and the press.
 -Banning forced arbitration clauses and class action waivers for all employment, consumer protection, antitrust, and civil rights cases.
 -Boosting transparency in cases that involve public health or safety, by prohibiting courts from using sealed settlements to conceal evidence.
 -Prohibiting judges from being able to decide for themselves whether they should recuse themselves from a case due to a conflict. The plan would also require Supreme Court Justices to provide written explanations of recusal decisions when a litigant challenges for recusal.
 -Beefing up the disciplinary authority of judicial ethics watchdogs, including giving them the power to take away non-vested taxpayer-funded pensions from judges as a penalty for wrongdoing.

Trapper Gus wrote:

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

Now the speaker is basically owned by Trump.  Absurd that a private citizen, someone not currently in political position could actively have sway over a big part of our government.  So unamerican.

Dude!

The Republican Party is owned by a handful of Billionaires, which is why when Trump was President and they held both chambers in Congress the only major Act they passed was a huge tax cut for the 0.1%, under threat of those Billionaires pulling all their funding for the party.

Trapper Gus wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:

So you're fine with your politicians being bought and paid for as long as they're from your party.

And don't most big companies and lobbyists give money to people from both parties?

Oh please, not this meaningless both-siderism shit again.

Policies are what matter.

The people who own that Republican Party don't give a fuck about the United States as a democracy or anyone but their less than 1% of the demographic of the population.  Their preferred policies suck for the 99% plus of the population of the country.  Some of them want to change the Constitution to eliminate the power of voting.  Just look at all the States they control working in lockstep to keep people from voting. That is the entirety of that Party.

The people who have power in the Democratic Party are much more diverse policy wise.  The Progressive wing is all about policies which provide economic benefits to the 99%.  The more moderate wings, some of whom have swallowed the neo-liberal economic poison, are at least not trying to fuck the 99% in support of the 1% 100% of the time like the Republicans.

Trapper Gus wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Because the money that the Dems receive (even when from the same lobbyists with the same agendas) is strictly for altruistic and charitable reasons, and never benefits those companies at the expense of what's best for the American people.

Just because A is worse than B, doesn't make B good.  

Talk about policy all you want, but don't pretend that money and influence from people outside of government is something that is some new scourge on democracy and only involves one side.  It's a long-standing fact of our democracy.

Okay?  I thought that the idea of self-government was that the population as a whole had influence on what was done. /s Only the Democratic Party is operating that way.  The Republicans are bought and paid for by a very small set of people.

Just look at what the Democratic Party got done in the last two years that is good for the country, versus the two years of complete train wreak with only a tax cut for the 1% to show for it when from 2017-2018 during Trump, when the Republicans had control and were sucking the dicks of the Billionaires who pay for the Republicans.

Policies are the only thing that matters.

I have been talking about it on MSU message boards for 25 years, so shut up :) about it being something new with me.

If you really want to get into why the Billionaires now completely own the Republicans, just go look at the Justices they put on the Supreme Court who ruled that "money is speech" in 2011 and opened the floodgates to the current political dynamic.   The Democratic Party is getting way more of its funding from small donations, something the internet has facilitated, while the Republicans are getting most of their funding from PAC's paid for by said Billionaires.  Sure, money is now the lifeblood of politics, and the Democratic Party gets big money, too, but is not 100% owned by it the way that the Republicans are.

edit - sorry if this seems a bit harsh, however I am tired of people who equate the two Parties when there are so many clear differences regarding goals.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Oh please, not this meaningless both-siderism shit again.

Policies are what matter.

The people who own that Republican Party don't give a fuck about the United States as a democracy or anyone but their less than 1% of the demographic of the population.  Their preferred policies suck for the 99% plus of the population of the country.  Some of them want to change the Constitution to eliminate the power of voting.  Just look at all the States they control working in lockstep to keep people from voting. That is the entirety of that Party.

The people who have power in the Democratic Party are much more diverse policy wise.  The Progressive wing is all about policies which provide economic benefits to the 99%.  The more moderate wings, some of whom have swallowed the neo-liberal economic poison, are at least not trying to fuck the 99% in support of the 1% 100% of the time like the Republicans.

Because the money that the Dems receive (even when from the same lobbyists with the same agendas) is strictly for altruistic and charitable reasons, and never benefits those companies at the expense of what's best for the American people.

Just because A is worse than B, doesn't make B good.  

Talk about policy all you want, but don't pretend that money and influence from people outside of government is something that is some new scourge on democracy and only involves one side.  It's a long-standing fact of our democracy.

Trapper Gus wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
If it isn't clear from my posting history, then my A vs B analogy should have made it clear that I wasn't equating the morality of the two parties.  Jesus, does the fact that Republicans are awful, mean that Democrats are therefore pure angels and bastions of integrity and honesty?  I'm sorry if it offends you to not be a fan of your "team", but I don't think very highly of any politician.  Yet that doesn't mean that I don't think one side is worse than the others, and can't want lobbyists and big donors out of the picture for all.

The Democratic Party is "my team" only because there is no other choice.  I find the concept of "my team" to be a not very subtle put down of people who decide to support the best choice available by those who appear to be totally naive about politics, or people who refuse to support the better choice while crying for a perfect choice.

In arguments with various posters about policies it should be clear that not everything the Democratic Party is doing are policies I agree with, however far fewer policies the Republican Party supports are ones I agree with so the Democratic Party is the better choice to support.  Mostly many of the policies which the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party argues for I agree with, and many of the policies that the conservative wing of the Democratic Party argues for I don't agree with, however I will still vote for the conservative Democratic candidates in a general election because, as surprising as it may be to the "my team" saying people, /s a Party must have a majority of the seats in a body to get anything done.

When I say that the Republican Party is owned by a super small set of people, I am basically stating a fact which has been researched and reported on almost endlessly by investigative reporting.  When I say that the Democratic Party has a broader doner base with small donations that is also stating a fact which has been researched and reported just about as endlessly.  If either one of those situations is good or bad depends on if one person is aligned with the goals of the people who provide the money to each Party.  Since the goals of the Democratic Party tend to be more in support of Progressive Polices and the goals of the Republican Party tend to be more in support of Libertarian / Theocracy / Autocratic Polices one can chose one or the other if one wishes to have any effect, however little, on what the government does.

If one wishes to bemoan the reality that the people who pay the bills for each party have from some to almost total say over what each Party does, then IMO, one is not complaining about what each Party does, but instead is complaining about the reality of human existence in a group.  

When I say that the Republican Party is owned by the Billionaires, that is a shorthanded way of saying that it does creates polices which are positive for them, but not for most of the population of the country, while the polices from the Democratic Party often are policies which have a broader positive wellbeing impact on a larger part of the population.

I disagree with those who say, "a pox on all politicians", as IMO what they do is very difficult, that is trying to find and support policies which any sizable group of people all support.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Because the money that the Dems receive (even when from the same lobbyists with the same agendas) is strictly for altruistic and charitable reasons, and never benefits those companies at the expense of what's best for the American people.

Just because A is worse than B, doesn't make B good.  

Talk about policy all you want, but don't pretend that money and influence from people outside of government is something that is some new scourge on democracy and only involves one side.  It's a long-standing fact of our democracy.

dude, one side wants to protect democracy, allow access to free and fair elections, provide women with autonomy over their own bodies, provide access to affordable healthcare to all Americans, while promoting and protecting traditional American values.

the other side literally wants to end democracy, they celebrate the slaughter of children in school shootings, they want to force their sick, dangerous and violent religious beliefs on the American public while relegating women and racial minorities to second class citizens.

so.. yeah. Gimme the first group.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote: dude, one side wants to protect democracy, allow access to free and fair elections, provide women with autonomy over their own bodies, provide access to affordable healthcare to all Americans, while promoting and protecting traditional American values.

the other side literally wants to end democracy, they celebrate the slaughter of children in school shootings, they want to force their sick, dangerous and violent religious beliefs on the American public while relegating women and racial minorities to second class citizens.

so.. yeah. Gimme the first group.

And did I say otherwise?  Some of you have trouble with the concept that just because one side is worse, doesn't make the other side perfect.  Is supporting the overthrow of democracy really where we want to set the bar?  As long as you don't do support an insurrection, you're a wonderful beacon of truth, justice, and the American Way.  That's a dangerous way to think (and for the love of god, I am not saying that it's as dangerous as Republicans...I shouldn't have to qualify everything with a statement like that, but it appears that for some of you, I do).

Trapper Gus wrote:

AvgMSUJoe wrote:I understand what he's saying... bought is bought. I also understand the aclu and labor unions aren't the same thing as some dark money slush fund from a handful of billionaires.

That said, I'd rather have the rules licensing and regulating ALL lobbyists including public scheduled meetings and nothing of value being transferred to govt employees or their families.

Okay? I guess.

However, bought by a small number of very wealthy people seems to me to be way different than bought by political advocates representing millions of people.  That could just be me.

Also, the reason why this is ongoing is because the Republican Party put a bunch of radical hacks on the Supreme Court who said, back in 2011, the money is speech.  So, if people are bitching about this issue, they need to be pointing the finger at the Republicans, who created it.  Maybe again, this is just me, because I sort of like "cause and effect" and "root cause analysis."

Democratic Senate candidates got 41 percent of their money from small donors compared to Republicans’ 28 percent. But Republican House candidates raised a higher percentage from small donors than did Democrats, 23 percent to 19 percent. President-elect Joe Biden raised 39 percent of his money from those unitemized donors compared to 45 percent for Trump, who had the best small-dollar showing for a Republican presidential candidate.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Okay? I guess.

However, bought by a small number of very wealthy people seems to me to be way different than bought by political advocates representing millions of people.  That could just be me.

Also, the reason why this is ongoing is because the Republican Party put a bunch of radical hacks on the Supreme Court who said, back in 2011, the money is speech.  So, if people are bitching about this issue, they need to be pointing the finger at the Republicans, who created it.  Maybe again, this is just me, because I sort of like "cause and effect" and "root cause analysis."

You didn't really answer when I commented before that you think that corporations/lobbyists who give money to Democrats are doing purely it for altruistic and charitable reasons.  So you do seem to actually believe this?

How many corporations/lobbyists give money to both parties?  Most, if not all of the big ones.  Lemme guess, they give to Democrats to make sure their policies help regular people and harm their business.  Fact is, in 2022, 4 of the 5 biggest recipient of lobbyist money (and 7 of the top 10) were Democrats.

You keep talking about the Dems relying on small donations.  In 2020 (I don't have the numbers for 2022), per followthemoney.org....

Democratic Senate candidates got 41 percent of their money from small donors compared to Republicans’ 28 percent. But Republican House candidates raised a higher percentage from small donors than did Democrats, 23 percent to 19 percent. President-elect Joe Biden raised 39 percent of his money from those unitemized donors compared to 45 percent for Trump, who had the best small-dollar showing for a Republican presidential candidate.

https://www.followthemoney.org/research/institute-reports/joint-report-reveals-record-donations-in-2020-state-and-federal-races

THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT IM SAYING DEMS ARE AS BAD OR WORSE THAN REPUBLICANS OR THAT MOST CURRENT REPUBLICANS ARE ANYTHING OTHER THAN HORRIBLE ANTI-DEMOCRATIC FUCKWADS.  I shouldn't have to keep repeating that, but I feel I have to, or some of you will flip out.

Trapper Gus wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
You didn't really answer when I commented before that you think that corporations/lobbyists who give money to Democrats are doing purely it for altruistic and charitable reasons.  So you do seem to actually believe this?

How many corporations/lobbyists give money to both parties?  Most, if not all of the big ones.  Lemme guess, they give to Democrats to make sure their policies help regular people and harm their business.  Fact is, in 2022, 4 of the 5 biggest recipient of lobbyist money (and 7 of the top 10) were Democrats.

You keep talking about the Dems relying on small donations.  In 2020 (I don't have the numbers for 2022), per followthemoney.org....

https://www.followthemoney.org/research/institute-reports/joint-report-reveals-record-donations-in-2020-state-and-federal-races

THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT IM SAYING DEMS ARE AS BAD OR WORSE THAN REPUBLICANS OR THAT MOST CURRENT REPUBLICANS ARE ANYTHING OTHER THAN HORRIBLE ANTI-DEMOCRATIC FUCKWADS.  I shouldn't have to keep repeating that, but I feel I have to, or some of you will flip out.

Okay.

It seems to me that you are saying, in counter to me saying that the Republican Party is owned by a handful of wealthy people, and they only do what benefits those wealthy people, that the Democratic Party is also owned by a handful of wealthy people and they only do what benefits those wealthy people.  

Both sides are basically the same and the Republicans are "horrible anti-democratic fuckwads", which it can be inferred, mean the Democratics are the same.

You may not be saying that but is sounds like you are.

The point I have been trying to make is that the Republican Party's policies, which they have been demonstrating as the ones they support via years and years of votes and acts they have managed to pass, are predominantly to make the wealthy wealthier and to shit on everyone else, along with long-term goals of Libertarian / Theocracy / Autocratic Polices.

While the history of the Democratic Party goals is far from ideal, what with their drift to the right starting with JFK and their hard right turn during Bill Clinton, they have been much more consistently on the side of the 99% as opposed to the Republicans.  This makes them the only "team" that is supportable, by default, since the Republicans have left the field, so to speak.

This is not to say that the Democratic Party does not take money from the wealthy, or that money doesn't give the wealthy access to the Democratic Party.  Nor does it mean that everything the Democratic Party does is only for the 99%.  The 1% are important too.

You are attacking me for supporting the Democratic Party, but honestly, I don't see any other choice.  Certainly, I can't support the Republican Party which is fighting only for the "1%", nor is "sitting the game out" a rational choice.  Thus, my support for the Democratic Party, and my viewpoint that anyone who is not, and is part of the "99%", is working against their best interests.

Also, from an ideal point of view, the Democratic Party is the Party supporting policies which increase the Rights of the People as a whole, as opposed to the Republican Party, which is opposed to increasing the Rights of the People as a whole.

The idea that the People had sovereign political rights was the great innovation of the United States when it broke away from the Empire. Thus, of the two Parties only one is working to further the ideals of the United States.  This, by itself, is reason enough to fight for "one team".

Trapper Gus wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:
You didn't really answer when I commented before that you think that corporations/lobbyists who give money to Democrats are doing purely it for altruistic and charitable reasons.  So you do seem to actually believe this?

How many corporations/lobbyists give money to both parties?  Most, if not all of the big ones.  Lemme guess, they give to Democrats to make sure their policies help regular people and harm their business.  Fact is, in 2022, 4 of the 5 biggest recipient of lobbyist money (and 7 of the top 10) were Democrats.

You keep talking about the Dems relying on small donations.  In 2020 (I don't have the numbers for 2022), per followthemoney.org....

https://www.followthemoney.org/research/institute-reports/joint-report-reveals-record-donations-in-2020-state-and-federal-races

THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT IM SAYING DEMS ARE AS BAD OR WORSE THAN REPUBLICANS OR THAT MOST CURRENT REPUBLICANS ARE ANYTHING OTHER THAN HORRIBLE ANTI-DEMOCRATIC FUCKWADS.  I shouldn't have to keep repeating that, but I feel I have to, or some of you will flip out.

Okay.

It seems to me that you are saying, in counter to me saying that the Republican Party is owned by a handful of wealthy people, and they only do what benefits those wealthy people, that the Democratic Party is also owned by a handful of wealthy people and they only do what benefits those wealthy people.  

Both sides are basically the same and the Republicans are "horrible anti-democratic fuckwads", which it can be inferred, mean the Democratics are the same.

You may not be saying that but is sounds like you are.

The point I have been trying to make is that the Republican Party's policies, which they have been demonstrating as the ones they support via years and years of votes and acts they have managed to pass, are predominantly to make the wealthy wealthier and to shit on everyone else, along with long-term goals of Libertarian / Theocracy / Autocratic Polices.

While the history of the Democratic Party goals is far from ideal, what with their drift to the right starting with JFK and their hard right turn during Bill Clinton, they have been much more consistently on the side of the 99% as opposed to the Republicans.  This makes them the only "team" that is supportable, by default, since the Republicans have left the field, so to speak.

This is not to say that the Democratic Party does not take money from the wealthy, or that money doesn't give the wealthy access to the Democratic Party.  Nor does it mean that everything the Democratic Party does is only for the 99%.  The 1% are important too.

You are attacking me for supporting the Democratic Party, but honestly, I don't see any other choice.  Certainly, I can't support the Republican Party which is fighting only for the "1%", nor is "sitting the game out" a rational choice.  Thus, my support for the Democratic Party, and my viewpoint that anyone who is not, and is part of the "99%", is working against their best interests.

Also, from an ideal point of view, the Democratic Party is the Party supporting policies which increase the Rights of the People as a whole, as opposed to the Republican Party, which is opposed to increasing the Rights of the People as a whole.

The idea that the People had sovereign political rights was the great innovation of the United States when it broke away from the Empire. Thus, of the two Parties only one is working to further the ideals of the United States.  This, by itself, is reason enough to fight for "one team".