Re: Kevin McCarthy

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2023-01-10, 21:10

MiamiSpartan wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

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".

I quit reading after you some completely and utterly bastardized my opinions that have clearly said the opposite here and elsewhere. If that's how you read it, you have some serious reading comprehension issues, and it's not worth it to continue wasting my time in this discussion.

you're a great American and I admire your ability to live in Florida. Kevin McCarthy - Page 5 969504605

by **Trapper Gus** 2023-01-11, 08:08

MiamiSpartan wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

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".

I quit reading after you some completely and utterly bastardized my opinions that have clearly said the opposite here and elsewhere. If that's how you read it, you have some serious reading comprehension issues, and it's not worth it to continue wasting my time in this discussion.

That cool. I only kept replying because of your replies which I felt were bastardized my opinions, which should have been clear if you have been reading what I have posted since I started posting here again, which I have no reason to expect that you were, so my opinion was that we kept missing each other's points.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2023-01-11, 09:00

McDonald v United States assures you that politicians and judges of all shapes and sizes are wildly corrupt but there is nothing illegal about it. (Unanimously ruled that obvious bribery was not indeed bribery) and our lovely justices will be doing more of the same ruling in other cases coming up this year.

The only thing to take from that case is that the actions taken are so commonplace (gov of maryland received hundreds of thousands of dollars in exchange for favors) and the justices themselves engage in it, that since they are ruling from their rich and powerful world they can’t possibly conceive it to be wrong.

So to answer Miami’s question, I would not really care if a politician was doing everything I want but getting bribed because many of them are getting bribed and not doing everything I want so hey it’s an improvement

by **Trapper Gus** 2023-01-11, 09:26

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:McDonald v United States assures you that politicians and judges of all shapes and sizes are wildly corrupt but there is nothing illegal about it. (Unanimously ruled that obvious bribery was not indeed bribery) and our lovely justices will be doing more of the same ruling in other cases coming up this year.

The only thing to take from that case is that the actions taken are so commonplace (gov of maryland received hundreds of thousands of dollars in exchange for favors) and the justices themselves engage in it, that since they are ruling from their rich and powerful world they can’t possibly conceive it to be wrong.

So to answer Miami’s question, I would not really care if a politician was doing everything I want but getting bribed because many of them are getting bribed and not doing everything I want so hey it’s an improvement

Chief Justice John Roberts authored the unanimous opinion. McDonnell's conviction was vacated on the grounds that the meaning of "official act" does not include merely setting up a meeting, calling another public official, or hosting an event.

Yes, our Supreme Court has been bashing holes in any form of limited money that government officials can receive. Sort of means then only way to judge if they are passing Acts which are in our interests is to see what the policies are they support.

by **Floyd Robertson** 2023-01-25, 08:58

Fuck this asshat.

[tw]1618051159075487744[/tw]

MTG can be on the House Homeland Security committee but Schiff and Swalwell can't be on Intelligence?

by **Trapper Gus** 2023-01-25, 09:05

Floyd Robertson wrote:Fuck this asshat.

[tw]1618051159075487744[/tw]

MTG can be on the House Homeland Security committee but Schiff and Swalwell can't be on Intelligence?

This is stupid from an intelligence point of view and weakens the committee.

It is political grandstanding of the worst sort, which probably gets the MAGA RWNJ's in their base excited.

by TravelinMan 2023-01-25, 11:00

Trapper Gus wrote:
Floyd Robertson wrote:Fuck this asshat.

[tw]1618051159075487744[/tw]

MTG can be on the House Homeland Security committee but Schiff and Swalwell can't be on Intelligence?

This is stupid from an intelligence point of view and weakens the committee.

It is political grandstanding of the worst sort, which probably gets the MAGA RWNJ's in their base excited.

New boss comes in, replaces some of the company leaders with his own, trusted people. Happens every day in America.

by **Trapper Gus** 2023-01-25, 11:16

TravelinMan wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

This is stupid from an intelligence point of view and weakens the committee.

It is political grandstanding of the worst sort, which probably gets the MAGA RWNJ's in their base excited.

New boss comes in, replaces some of the company leaders with his own, trusted people. Happens every day in America.

Sure, boss replaces long term people who know what is going on and how to run the business with people who don't have a clue and run the business into the ground in 6 months.

by Rick Saunders 2023-01-25, 11:34

TravelinMan wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

This is stupid from an intelligence point of view and weakens the committee.

It is political grandstanding of the worst sort, which probably gets the MAGA RWNJ's in their base excited.

New boss comes in, replaces some of the company leaders with his own, trusted people. Happens every day in America.

I can accept that to a point. But to say MTG falls into the category of "my own trusted person" should be a problem to anyone (regardless of what McCarthy thinks Swalwell is.)

by **Trapper Gus** 2023-01-25, 11:42

There are rules in the US House, some of which are the make-up of most committees, especially the standing committees, by Party.

The Republicans who were booted off committees in the 117th Congress were booted off with full votes in the chamber, and there were Republicans who voted to remove them.

The January 6th committee make up, with no Republicans nominations accepted, was due the Republicans not replacing those nominations which were seen to be people who were under investigation themselves. That is on the Minority Leader's head, the guy who in now the Speaker.

Booting the ranking member is total bull shit retaliation, not a good place for a leader to start from.

by **Trapper Gus** 2023-05-27, 09:15

TravelinMan wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

This is stupid from an intelligence point of view and weakens the committee.

It is political grandstanding of the worst sort, which probably gets the MAGA RWNJ's in their base excited.

New boss comes in, replaces some of the company leaders with his own, trusted people. Happens every day in America.

Sorry but another point.

The US Congress is not a private autocratic business.

Any comparison to one is stupid.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2023-12-06, 11:57

lying, spineless, whiny, anti-America christian Kevin McCarthy is taking his ball and going home.

announced he's leaving Congress at the end of the year. Not even finishing his term.

by **Trapper Gus** 2023-12-06, 12:53

Robert J Sakimano wrote:lying, spineless, whiny, anti-America christian Kevin McCarthy is taking his ball and going home.

announced he's leaving Congress at the end of the year. Not even finishing his term.

With that guy from NY & another one taking a university job they are getting close to loosing the House.

by **Floyd Robertson** 2023-12-06, 12:56

Question is, where he be running for a Senate seat from?

by **Jake from State Farm** 2023-12-06, 14:18

Robert J Sakimano wrote:lying, spineless, whiny, anti-America christian Kevin McCarthy is taking his ball and going home.

announced he's leaving Congress at the end of the year. Not even finishing his term.

Now all we need is Trump's dementia to go to full blown so that he forgets which country he's actually in and forgets that he's running for dictator of America

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2023-12-06, 15:40

Jake from State Farm wrote:
Robert J Sakimano wrote:lying, spineless, whiny, anti-America christian Kevin McCarthy is taking his ball and going home.

announced he's leaving Congress at the end of the year. Not even finishing his term.

Now all we need is Trump's dementia to go to full blown so that he forgets which country he's actually in and forgets that he's running for dictator of America

I was predicting that his bloated sack of diseased putrid filth might not make it to Election Day on 2020.

I was wrong.

imagine having the ability, via simple genetics, to live to, say, 80.. and all of the good you could do for the world, and, instead, you spend your years raping women, raping little girls, mocking disabled people, inciting a deadly insurrection on democracy, inciting racial violence, committing felony after felony after felony, impregnating dozens of women, having 4-5 wives, god only knows how many children, etc., all in the name of christianity and money.

oh well, maybe he'll die soon and go to heaven with all the other christians and the people and children he's abused for decades can get some peace.

by Sponsored content