GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

“This is the uniparty for the American people watching,” Greene says amid boos from both sides of the aisle. https://t.co/Jk28xqpVjU

— The Recount (@therecount) May 8, 2024

---

She is a real problem, she is even going against Trump now.

---

she's speaking for a majority of the party w/r/t the Speaker.....

Why is it always the conservatives who are the problem for resisting leadership, but not moderates who do exactly the same thing?

---

Majority of the Party???? I don't know what Party you belong to. Johnson's Conservative credentials are better than Greene's! For someone that seems to pride himself on being an analyst, strategic thinker you support some very strange positions. You know better than most that Johnson, ANY GOP Speaker today, is limited in what they can do and get accomplished. Yet, you support whack job, shrill emotional outburst like yesterday that do nothing but create chaos and give more power to the Dems. Johnson knows getting Trump elected is Job #1, the rest is just trying to keep the Nation on the rails until the election.

By the way, she got slapped down by her own Party and the GOP Nominee. Look at the vote. Don't think she is in tuned with the Party.

Worse yet, she has NO concept of how to actually accomplish anything. Her and Gaetz just go off the rails run by pure emotion. Meanwhile, the Dems act as a block and everything is a concerted effort. They are setting Trump and the neo-GOP back decades...

That is my name for the current GOP - neo-GOP. Because it sure ain't Reagan and Goldwater's GOP.

---

Conservative credentials aside, he facilitated the advance of items important to the left and got nothing in return. He did it on military aid. He did it on FISA courts. What did "we" get in return? (nothing that I'm aware of.) She is expressing a view held by a majority of Republicans, who are frustrated that we spent all this money on Israel and Ukraine (which did need spending) and got nothing done to stop the flow of people across the southern border (which does need stopping).

Fact is, moderates in the party are just as unreasonable as MTG. Moderates are threatening to cross aisles if they don't get their way, too. Etc......

Why is it always the responsibility of the Republicans to compromise? Democrats were willing to let Ukraine go down in defeat to protect their border policy. Why are they not the problem here? (answer: because they know GOP moderates will bend to the urge to be the adult in the room.)

Until Democrats are filled with terror that the GOP actually is ready to say no, sit down under a shad tree, and start peeling peaches while the whole show burns to the ground, Democrats will continue to make maximalist demands and wait until Republicans cave.

---

Several issues here.

First, Johnson and through and through Conservative said point blank his view on supporting Ukraine and Israel changed when he saw the intel. You of everyone on this Board should respect that answer. You know he is not at liberty to share, but if a guy with his pedigree is saying there are things you don't know, and we need to fund this. It should carry weight,
actually, his statement about "seeing the intel" concerned the FISA court. He shoulda said "fine, let the FISA court collapse. We'll write better law on a new one next week." And then be prepared to in fact let it collapse and start writing law on a replacement. Until Democrats understand that we are prepared do do exactly that, they will keep winning.

Second. that ship has sailed. The GOP is dysfunctional. You have to ask why? You say moderates are willing to leave, why? The Dem Moderates are ok with the most radical positions of the Squad.
Read what you wrote there. Dem Moderates go along with ALL of the radical positions of the Squad....they NEVER publicly criticize them. Where are all the stories about the Dem moderates saving the party from the Squad, undermining the far left to work with Republicans? Blue Dogs, Blue Dogs, wherefore art thou, Blue Dogs?

What is the GOP extreme asking that is so unpalatable that they are willing to cross.
Like what. GIve us an example of an extreme position that Gaetz and MTG are demanding? I disagree with them on Ukraine funding. Very unwise positions they have taken. But is it really "extreme" to demand fiscal restraint? Is it really extreme to suggest the problem on the border is worse? I mean, where, EXACTLY is the extreme position analogous to the ideological nonsense of the Squad?

Calling them names and yelling at them is not gonna get it done.
Equating MTG with the squad and calling her a radical is not gonna get it done, either, when all she's doing is standing up for things that are broadly popular, if not majoritarian positions within the party.

MAGA needs to take a look in the mirror if life long GOPers are willing to retire and cross than support what they want. But, seems you prefer to call them names. Gaetz and Greene hurt the Party.
And the moderates who create them don't?

---

Never fight with your base, man. Never. It is a bullet train to the hurt locker.

---

MTG is the Republican base?

---

Her views are a far larger slice of the primary electorate than yours are.

Are you going to demonize all of them, or work with them?

---

I'm an Independent
Will you work with me. DJT said he didn't want or need folks who supported other Republicans. I believe him

---

Well, let's see....independents certainly do not have a governing majority, and there aren't any moderates in the Democrat Party. Very monolithic majorities there in favor of open borders, modern monetary theory, green new deal, etc.... Of course, you can join with a quarter or so of the GOP who doesn't like Trump, but that doesn't get you anywhere near a governing majority either. Now, moderates are practical, if we are to believe what we are told, so exactly how do they change direction in Washington while refusing to work with the GOP?

There's an old quote attributed to various people but most often Sam Rayburn which goes "any jackass can kick a barn down; but it takes a carpenter to build one."

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?

---

Is that a bad thing, being a Moderate? Why? When did a Reagan, Eisenhower and Nixon (politically) view become moderate and bad?

---

You act like things are static…Reagan, Eisenhower, and Nixon would all be considered "hard core right wing" by the Media today.

Can you imagine Eisenhower governing the country with 1950s social-moral values…people would be calling him a theocratic fascist

---

Eisenhower used the 82nd to ensure the law was upheld and civil rights moved forward the first civil rights act. No politician would do that today, but look at Eisenhower's social advances. MTG would go ballistic and she represents the base. Reagan granted Amnesty. Nixon took us off the golf standard. All extremely conservative stances, right?

---

---

Tricky Dick. Didn't say he was likeable

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

“This is the uniparty for the American people watching,” Greene says amid boos from both sides of the aisle. https://t.co/Jk28xqpVjU

— The Recount (@therecount) May 8, 2024

---

She is a real problem, she is even going against Trump now.

---

she's speaking for a majority of the party w/r/t the Speaker.....

Why is it always the conservatives who are the problem for resisting leadership, but not moderates who do exactly the same thing?

---

Majority of the Party???? I don't know what Party you belong to. Johnson's Conservative credentials are better than Greene's! For someone that seems to pride himself on being an analyst, strategic thinker you support some very strange positions. You know better than most that Johnson, ANY GOP Speaker today, is limited in what they can do and get accomplished. Yet, you support whack job, shrill emotional outburst like yesterday that do nothing but create chaos and give more power to the Dems. Johnson knows getting Trump elected is Job #1, the rest is just trying to keep the Nation on the rails until the election.

By the way, she got slapped down by her own Party and the GOP Nominee. Look at the vote. Don't think she is in tuned with the Party.

Worse yet, she has NO concept of how to actually accomplish anything. Her and Gaetz just go off the rails run by pure emotion. Meanwhile, the Dems act as a block and everything is a concerted effort. They are setting Trump and the neo-GOP back decades...

That is my name for the current GOP - neo-GOP. Because it sure ain't Reagan and Goldwater's GOP.

---

Conservative credentials aside, he facilitated the advance of items important to the left and got nothing in return. He did it on military aid. He did it on FISA courts. What did "we" get in return? (nothing that I'm aware of.) She is expressing a view held by a majority of Republicans, who are frustrated that we spent all this money on Israel and Ukraine (which did need spending) and got nothing done to stop the flow of people across the southern border (which does need stopping).

Fact is, moderates in the party are just as unreasonable as MTG. Moderates are threatening to cross aisles if they don't get their way, too. Etc......

Why is it always the responsibility of the Republicans to compromise? Democrats were willing to let Ukraine go down in defeat to protect their border policy. Why are they not the problem here? (answer: because they know GOP moderates will bend to the urge to be the adult in the room.)

Until Democrats are filled with terror that the GOP actually is ready to say no, sit down under a shad tree, and start peeling peaches while the whole show burns to the ground, Democrats will continue to make maximalist demands and wait until Republicans cave.

---

Several issues here.

First, Johnson and through and through Conservative said point blank his view on supporting Ukraine and Israel changed when he saw the intel. You of everyone on this Board should respect that answer. You know he is not at liberty to share, but if a guy with his pedigree is saying there are things you don't know, and we need to fund this. It should carry weight,
actually, his statement about "seeing the intel" concerned the FISA court. He shoulda said "fine, let the FISA court collapse. We'll write better law on a new one next week." And then be prepared to in fact let it collapse and start writing law on a replacement. Until Democrats understand that we are prepared do do exactly that, they will keep winning.

Second. that ship has sailed. The GOP is dysfunctional. You have to ask why? You say moderates are willing to leave, why? The Dem Moderates are ok with the most radical positions of the Squad.
Read what you wrote there. Dem Moderates go along with ALL of the radical positions of the Squad....they NEVER publicly criticize them. Where are all the stories about the Dem moderates saving the party from the Squad, undermining the far left to work with Republicans? Blue Dogs, Blue Dogs, wherefore art thou, Blue Dogs?

What is the GOP extreme asking that is so unpalatable that they are willing to cross.
Like what. GIve us an example of an extreme position that Gaetz and MTG are demanding? I disagree with them on Ukraine funding. Very unwise positions they have taken. But is it really "extreme" to demand fiscal restraint? Is it really extreme to suggest the problem on the border is worse? I mean, where, EXACTLY is the extreme position analogous to the ideological nonsense of the Squad?

Calling them names and yelling at them is not gonna get it done.
Equating MTG with the squad and calling her a radical is not gonna get it done, either, when all she's doing is standing up for things that are broadly popular, if not majoritarian positions within the party.

MAGA needs to take a look in the mirror if life long GOPers are willing to retire and cross than support what they want. But, seems you prefer to call them names. Gaetz and Greene hurt the Party.
And the moderates who create them don't?

---

Never fight with your base, man. Never. It is a bullet train to the hurt locker.

---

MTG is the Republican base?

---

Her views are a far larger slice of the primary electorate than yours are.

Are you going to demonize all of them, or work with them?

---

I'm an Independent
Will you work with me. DJT said he didn't want or need folks who supported other Republicans. I believe him

---

Well, let's see....independents certainly do not have a governing majority, and there aren't any moderates in the Democrat Party. Very monolithic majorities there in favor of open borders, modern monetary theory, green new deal, etc.... Of course, you can join with a quarter or so of the GOP who doesn't like Trump, but that doesn't get you anywhere near a governing majority either. Now, moderates are practical, if we are to believe what we are told, so exactly how do they change direction in Washington while refusing to work with the GOP?

There's an old quote attributed to various people but most often Sam Rayburn which goes "any jackass can kick a barn down; but it takes a carpenter to build one."

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?

---

Is that a bad thing, being a Moderate? Why? When did a Reagan, Eisenhower and Nixon (politically) view become moderate and bad?

---

You act like things are static…Reagan, Eisenhower, and Nixon would all be considered "hard core right wing" by the Media today.

Can you imagine Eisenhower governing the country with 1950s social-moral values…people would be calling him a theocratic fascist

---

Eisenhower used the 82nd to ensure the law was upheld and civil rights moved forward the first civil rights act. No politician would do that today, but look at Eisenhower's social advances. MTG would go ballistic and she represents the base. Reagan granted Amnesty. Nixon took us off the golf standard. All extremely conservative stances, right?

---

Eisenhower enforcing a Supreme Court ruling is just the basic thing you expect of a President.

He actually was very conservative and disliked the Warren Court and it's more activist line on civil rights

[Spearheaded by Chief Justice Earl Warren and Associate Justice William Brennan, the Warren Court radically expanded the reaches of the judicial power and altered constitutional law in a way that reverberates to this day. The changes were legion, including a constitutional right to privacy,[3] the right to remain silent,[4] the elimination of official school prayer in public schools,[5] desegregation,[6] and much more. Warren was the leader of the liberal wing; Brennan would provide its intellectual underpinnings. After he was no longer president, Eisenhower purportedly said, "I have made two mistakes, and they are both sitting on the Supreme Court." Or that Warren's nomination was "the biggest damn-fool mistake I ever made," or that his biggest mistake was "the appointment of that dumb son-of-a-***** Earl Warren."]

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

“This is the uniparty for the American people watching,” Greene says amid boos from both sides of the aisle. https://t.co/Jk28xqpVjU

— The Recount (@therecount) May 8, 2024

---

She is a real problem, she is even going against Trump now.

---

she's speaking for a majority of the party w/r/t the Speaker.....

Why is it always the conservatives who are the problem for resisting leadership, but not moderates who do exactly the same thing?

---

Majority of the Party???? I don't know what Party you belong to. Johnson's Conservative credentials are better than Greene's! For someone that seems to pride himself on being an analyst, strategic thinker you support some very strange positions. You know better than most that Johnson, ANY GOP Speaker today, is limited in what they can do and get accomplished. Yet, you support whack job, shrill emotional outburst like yesterday that do nothing but create chaos and give more power to the Dems. Johnson knows getting Trump elected is Job #1, the rest is just trying to keep the Nation on the rails until the election.

By the way, she got slapped down by her own Party and the GOP Nominee. Look at the vote. Don't think she is in tuned with the Party.

Worse yet, she has NO concept of how to actually accomplish anything. Her and Gaetz just go off the rails run by pure emotion. Meanwhile, the Dems act as a block and everything is a concerted effort. They are setting Trump and the neo-GOP back decades...

That is my name for the current GOP - neo-GOP. Because it sure ain't Reagan and Goldwater's GOP.

---

Conservative credentials aside, he facilitated the advance of items important to the left and got nothing in return. He did it on military aid. He did it on FISA courts. What did "we" get in return? (nothing that I'm aware of.) She is expressing a view held by a majority of Republicans, who are frustrated that we spent all this money on Israel and Ukraine (which did need spending) and got nothing done to stop the flow of people across the southern border (which does need stopping).

Fact is, moderates in the party are just as unreasonable as MTG. Moderates are threatening to cross aisles if they don't get their way, too. Etc......

Why is it always the responsibility of the Republicans to compromise? Democrats were willing to let Ukraine go down in defeat to protect their border policy. Why are they not the problem here? (answer: because they know GOP moderates will bend to the urge to be the adult in the room.)

Until Democrats are filled with terror that the GOP actually is ready to say no, sit down under a shad tree, and start peeling peaches while the whole show burns to the ground, Democrats will continue to make maximalist demands and wait until Republicans cave.

---

Several issues here.

First, Johnson and through and through Conservative said point blank his view on supporting Ukraine and Israel changed when he saw the intel. You of everyone on this Board should respect that answer. You know he is not at liberty to share, but if a guy with his pedigree is saying there are things you don't know, and we need to fund this. It should carry weight,
actually, his statement about "seeing the intel" concerned the FISA court. He shoulda said "fine, let the FISA court collapse. We'll write better law on a new one next week." And then be prepared to in fact let it collapse and start writing law on a replacement. Until Democrats understand that we are prepared do do exactly that, they will keep winning.

Second. that ship has sailed. The GOP is dysfunctional. You have to ask why? You say moderates are willing to leave, why? The Dem Moderates are ok with the most radical positions of the Squad.
Read what you wrote there. Dem Moderates go along with ALL of the radical positions of the Squad....they NEVER publicly criticize them. Where are all the stories about the Dem moderates saving the party from the Squad, undermining the far left to work with Republicans? Blue Dogs, Blue Dogs, wherefore art thou, Blue Dogs?

What is the GOP extreme asking that is so unpalatable that they are willing to cross.
Like what. GIve us an example of an extreme position that Gaetz and MTG are demanding? I disagree with them on Ukraine funding. Very unwise positions they have taken. But is it really "extreme" to demand fiscal restraint? Is it really extreme to suggest the problem on the border is worse? I mean, where, EXACTLY is the extreme position analogous to the ideological nonsense of the Squad?

Calling them names and yelling at them is not gonna get it done.
Equating MTG with the squad and calling her a radical is not gonna get it done, either, when all she's doing is standing up for things that are broadly popular, if not majoritarian positions within the party.

MAGA needs to take a look in the mirror if life long GOPers are willing to retire and cross than support what they want. But, seems you prefer to call them names. Gaetz and Greene hurt the Party.
And the moderates who create them don't?

---

Never fight with your base, man. Never. It is a bullet train to the hurt locker.

---

MTG is the Republican base?

---

Her views are a far larger slice of the primary electorate than yours are.

Are you going to demonize all of them, or work with them?

---

I'm an Independent
Will you work with me. DJT said he didn't want or need folks who supported other Republicans. I believe him

---

Well, let's see....independents certainly do not have a governing majority, and there aren't any moderates in the Democrat Party. Very monolithic majorities there in favor of open borders, modern monetary theory, green new deal, etc.... Of course, you can join with a quarter or so of the GOP who doesn't like Trump, but that doesn't get you anywhere near a governing majority either. Now, moderates are practical, if we are to believe what we are told, so exactly how do they change direction in Washington while refusing to work with the GOP?

There's an old quote attributed to various people but most often Sam Rayburn which goes "any jackass can kick a barn down; but it takes a carpenter to build one."

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?

---

Is that a bad thing, being a Moderate? Why? When did a Reagan, Eisenhower and Nixon (politically) view become moderate and bad?

---

You act like things are static…Reagan, Eisenhower, and Nixon would all be considered "hard core right wing" by the Media today.

Can you imagine Eisenhower governing the country with 1950s social-moral values…people would be calling him a theocratic fascist

---

Eisenhower used the 82nd to ensure the law was upheld and civil rights moved forward the first civil rights act. No politician would do that today, but look at Eisenhower's social advances. MTG would go ballistic and she represents the base. Reagan granted Amnesty. Nixon took us off the golf standard. All extremely conservative stances, right?

---

Eisenhower enforcing a Supreme Court ruling is just the basic thing you expect of a President.

He actually was very conservative and disliked the Warren Court and it's more activist line on civil rights

[Spearheaded by Chief Justice Earl Warren and Associate Justice William Brennan, the Warren Court radically expanded the reaches of the judicial power and altered constitutional law in a way that reverberates to this day. The changes were legion, including a constitutional right to privacy,[3] the right to remain silent,[4] the elimination of official school prayer in public schools,[5] desegregation,[6] and much more. Warren was the leader of the liberal wing; Brennan would provide its intellectual underpinnings. After he was no longer president, Eisenhower purportedly said, "I have made two mistakes, and they are both sitting on the Supreme Court." Or that Warren's nomination was "the biggest damn-fool mistake I ever made," or that his biggest mistake was "the appointment of that dumb son-of-a-***** Earl Warren."]

---

You are kidding right? What he did, a real action, by sending the 82nd to Ark
was basic? As comment after his Presidency is your proof? Sure, any of my examples are basic. You''s are the real analysis. So, why bother try to discuss with you guys to? Have fun with the circle jerk.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

“This is the uniparty for the American people watching,” Greene says amid boos from both sides of the aisle. https://t.co/Jk28xqpVjU

— The Recount (@therecount) May 8, 2024

---

She is a real problem, she is even going against Trump now.

---

she's speaking for a majority of the party w/r/t the Speaker.....

Why is it always the conservatives who are the problem for resisting leadership, but not moderates who do exactly the same thing?

---

Majority of the Party???? I don't know what Party you belong to. Johnson's Conservative credentials are better than Greene's! For someone that seems to pride himself on being an analyst, strategic thinker you support some very strange positions. You know better than most that Johnson, ANY GOP Speaker today, is limited in what they can do and get accomplished. Yet, you support whack job, shrill emotional outburst like yesterday that do nothing but create chaos and give more power to the Dems. Johnson knows getting Trump elected is Job #1, the rest is just trying to keep the Nation on the rails until the election.

By the way, she got slapped down by her own Party and the GOP Nominee. Look at the vote. Don't think she is in tuned with the Party.

Worse yet, she has NO concept of how to actually accomplish anything. Her and Gaetz just go off the rails run by pure emotion. Meanwhile, the Dems act as a block and everything is a concerted effort. They are setting Trump and the neo-GOP back decades...

That is my name for the current GOP - neo-GOP. Because it sure ain't Reagan and Goldwater's GOP.

---

Conservative credentials aside, he facilitated the advance of items important to the left and got nothing in return. He did it on military aid. He did it on FISA courts. What did "we" get in return? (nothing that I'm aware of.) She is expressing a view held by a majority of Republicans, who are frustrated that we spent all this money on Israel and Ukraine (which did need spending) and got nothing done to stop the flow of people across the southern border (which does need stopping).

Fact is, moderates in the party are just as unreasonable as MTG. Moderates are threatening to cross aisles if they don't get their way, too. Etc......

Why is it always the responsibility of the Republicans to compromise? Democrats were willing to let Ukraine go down in defeat to protect their border policy. Why are they not the problem here? (answer: because they know GOP moderates will bend to the urge to be the adult in the room.)

Until Democrats are filled with terror that the GOP actually is ready to say no, sit down under a shad tree, and start peeling peaches while the whole show burns to the ground, Democrats will continue to make maximalist demands and wait until Republicans cave.

---

Several issues here.

First, Johnson and through and through Conservative said point blank his view on supporting Ukraine and Israel changed when he saw the intel. You of everyone on this Board should respect that answer. You know he is not at liberty to share, but if a guy with his pedigree is saying there are things you don't know, and we need to fund this. It should carry weight,
actually, his statement about "seeing the intel" concerned the FISA court. He shoulda said "fine, let the FISA court collapse. We'll write better law on a new one next week." And then be prepared to in fact let it collapse and start writing law on a replacement. Until Democrats understand that we are prepared do do exactly that, they will keep winning.

Second. that ship has sailed. The GOP is dysfunctional. You have to ask why? You say moderates are willing to leave, why? The Dem Moderates are ok with the most radical positions of the Squad.
Read what you wrote there. Dem Moderates go along with ALL of the radical positions of the Squad....they NEVER publicly criticize them. Where are all the stories about the Dem moderates saving the party from the Squad, undermining the far left to work with Republicans? Blue Dogs, Blue Dogs, wherefore art thou, Blue Dogs?

What is the GOP extreme asking that is so unpalatable that they are willing to cross.
Like what. GIve us an example of an extreme position that Gaetz and MTG are demanding? I disagree with them on Ukraine funding. Very unwise positions they have taken. But is it really "extreme" to demand fiscal restraint? Is it really extreme to suggest the problem on the border is worse? I mean, where, EXACTLY is the extreme position analogous to the ideological nonsense of the Squad?

Calling them names and yelling at them is not gonna get it done.
Equating MTG with the squad and calling her a radical is not gonna get it done, either, when all she's doing is standing up for things that are broadly popular, if not majoritarian positions within the party.

MAGA needs to take a look in the mirror if life long GOPers are willing to retire and cross than support what they want. But, seems you prefer to call them names. Gaetz and Greene hurt the Party.
And the moderates who create them don't?

---

Never fight with your base, man. Never. It is a bullet train to the hurt locker.

---

MTG is the Republican base?

---

Her views are a far larger slice of the primary electorate than yours are.

Are you going to demonize all of them, or work with them?

---

I'm an Independent
Will you work with me. DJT said he didn't want or need folks who supported other Republicans. I believe him

---

Well, let's see....independents certainly do not have a governing majority, and there aren't any moderates in the Democrat Party. Very monolithic majorities there in favor of open borders, modern monetary theory, green new deal, etc.... Of course, you can join with a quarter or so of the GOP who doesn't like Trump, but that doesn't get you anywhere near a governing majority either. Now, moderates are practical, if we are to believe what we are told, so exactly how do they change direction in Washington while refusing to work with the GOP?

There's an old quote attributed to various people but most often Sam Rayburn which goes "any jackass can kick a barn down; but it takes a carpenter to build one."

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?

---

Is that a bad thing, being a Moderate? Why? When did a Reagan, Eisenhower and Nixon (politically) view become moderate and bad?

---

You act like things are static…Reagan, Eisenhower, and Nixon would all be considered "hard core right wing" by the Media today.

Can you imagine Eisenhower governing the country with 1950s social-moral values…people would be calling him a theocratic fascist

---

Eisenhower used the 82nd to ensure the law was upheld and civil rights moved forward the first civil rights act. No politician would do that today, but look at Eisenhower's social advances. MTG would go ballistic and she represents the base. Reagan granted Amnesty. Nixon took us off the golf standard. All extremely conservative stances, right?

---

Eisenhower enforcing a Supreme Court ruling is just the basic thing you expect of a President.

He actually was very conservative and disliked the Warren Court and it's more activist line on civil rights

[Spearheaded by Chief Justice Earl Warren and Associate Justice William Brennan, the Warren Court radically expanded the reaches of the judicial power and altered constitutional law in a way that reverberates to this day. The changes were legion, including a constitutional right to privacy,[3] the right to remain silent,[4] the elimination of official school prayer in public schools,[5] desegregation,[6] and much more. Warren was the leader of the liberal wing; Brennan would provide its intellectual underpinnings. After he was no longer president, Eisenhower purportedly said, "I have made two mistakes, and they are both sitting on the Supreme Court." Or that Warren's nomination was "the biggest damn-fool mistake I ever made," or that his biggest mistake was "the appointment of that dumb son-of-a-***** Earl Warren."]

---

Good catch.

Indeed, Ike was a conservative in more ways than one.

But he certainly wasn't fool proof.

Earl Warren is exhibit A

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

“This is the uniparty for the American people watching,” Greene says amid boos from both sides of the aisle. https://t.co/Jk28xqpVjU

— The Recount (@therecount) May 8, 2024

---

She is a real problem, she is even going against Trump now.

---

she's speaking for a majority of the party w/r/t the Speaker.....

Why is it always the conservatives who are the problem for resisting leadership, but not moderates who do exactly the same thing?

---

Majority of the Party???? I don't know what Party you belong to. Johnson's Conservative credentials are better than Greene's! For someone that seems to pride himself on being an analyst, strategic thinker you support some very strange positions. You know better than most that Johnson, ANY GOP Speaker today, is limited in what they can do and get accomplished. Yet, you support whack job, shrill emotional outburst like yesterday that do nothing but create chaos and give more power to the Dems. Johnson knows getting Trump elected is Job #1, the rest is just trying to keep the Nation on the rails until the election.

By the way, she got slapped down by her own Party and the GOP Nominee. Look at the vote. Don't think she is in tuned with the Party.

Worse yet, she has NO concept of how to actually accomplish anything. Her and Gaetz just go off the rails run by pure emotion. Meanwhile, the Dems act as a block and everything is a concerted effort. They are setting Trump and the neo-GOP back decades...

That is my name for the current GOP - neo-GOP. Because it sure ain't Reagan and Goldwater's GOP.

---

Conservative credentials aside, he facilitated the advance of items important to the left and got nothing in return. He did it on military aid. He did it on FISA courts. What did "we" get in return? (nothing that I'm aware of.) She is expressing a view held by a majority of Republicans, who are frustrated that we spent all this money on Israel and Ukraine (which did need spending) and got nothing done to stop the flow of people across the southern border (which does need stopping).

Fact is, moderates in the party are just as unreasonable as MTG. Moderates are threatening to cross aisles if they don't get their way, too. Etc......

Why is it always the responsibility of the Republicans to compromise? Democrats were willing to let Ukraine go down in defeat to protect their border policy. Why are they not the problem here? (answer: because they know GOP moderates will bend to the urge to be the adult in the room.)

Until Democrats are filled with terror that the GOP actually is ready to say no, sit down under a shad tree, and start peeling peaches while the whole show burns to the ground, Democrats will continue to make maximalist demands and wait until Republicans cave.

---

Several issues here.

First, Johnson and through and through Conservative said point blank his view on supporting Ukraine and Israel changed when he saw the intel. You of everyone on this Board should respect that answer. You know he is not at liberty to share, but if a guy with his pedigree is saying there are things you don't know, and we need to fund this. It should carry weight,
actually, his statement about "seeing the intel" concerned the FISA court. He shoulda said "fine, let the FISA court collapse. We'll write better law on a new one next week." And then be prepared to in fact let it collapse and start writing law on a replacement. Until Democrats understand that we are prepared do do exactly that, they will keep winning.

Second. that ship has sailed. The GOP is dysfunctional. You have to ask why? You say moderates are willing to leave, why? The Dem Moderates are ok with the most radical positions of the Squad.
Read what you wrote there. Dem Moderates go along with ALL of the radical positions of the Squad....they NEVER publicly criticize them. Where are all the stories about the Dem moderates saving the party from the Squad, undermining the far left to work with Republicans? Blue Dogs, Blue Dogs, wherefore art thou, Blue Dogs?

What is the GOP extreme asking that is so unpalatable that they are willing to cross.
Like what. GIve us an example of an extreme position that Gaetz and MTG are demanding? I disagree with them on Ukraine funding. Very unwise positions they have taken. But is it really "extreme" to demand fiscal restraint? Is it really extreme to suggest the problem on the border is worse? I mean, where, EXACTLY is the extreme position analogous to the ideological nonsense of the Squad?

Calling them names and yelling at them is not gonna get it done.
Equating MTG with the squad and calling her a radical is not gonna get it done, either, when all she's doing is standing up for things that are broadly popular, if not majoritarian positions within the party.

MAGA needs to take a look in the mirror if life long GOPers are willing to retire and cross than support what they want. But, seems you prefer to call them names. Gaetz and Greene hurt the Party.
And the moderates who create them don't?

---

Never fight with your base, man. Never. It is a bullet train to the hurt locker.

---

MTG is the Republican base?

---

Her views are a far larger slice of the primary electorate than yours are.

Are you going to demonize all of them, or work with them?

---

I'm an Independent
Will you work with me. DJT said he didn't want or need folks who supported other Republicans. I believe him

---

Well, let's see....independents certainly do not have a governing majority, and there aren't any moderates in the Democrat Party. Very monolithic majorities there in favor of open borders, modern monetary theory, green new deal, etc.... Of course, you can join with a quarter or so of the GOP who doesn't like Trump, but that doesn't get you anywhere near a governing majority either. Now, moderates are practical, if we are to believe what we are told, so exactly how do they change direction in Washington while refusing to work with the GOP?

There's an old quote attributed to various people but most often Sam Rayburn which goes "any jackass can kick a barn down; but it takes a carpenter to build one."

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?

---

Is that a bad thing, being a Moderate? Why? When did a Reagan, Eisenhower and Nixon (politically) view become moderate and bad?

---

You act like things are static…Reagan, Eisenhower, and Nixon would all be considered "hard core right wing" by the Media today.

Can you imagine Eisenhower governing the country with 1950s social-moral values…people would be calling him a theocratic fascist

---

Eisenhower used the 82nd to ensure the law was upheld and civil rights moved forward the first civil rights act. No politician would do that today, but look at Eisenhower's social advances. MTG would go ballistic and she represents the base. Reagan granted Amnesty. Nixon took us off the golf standard. All extremely conservative stances, right?

---

Eisenhower enforcing a Supreme Court ruling is just the basic thing you expect of a President.

He actually was very conservative and disliked the Warren Court and it's more activist line on civil rights

[Spearheaded by Chief Justice Earl Warren and Associate Justice William Brennan, the Warren Court radically expanded the reaches of the judicial power and altered constitutional law in a way that reverberates to this day. The changes were legion, including a constitutional right to privacy,[3] the right to remain silent,[4] the elimination of official school prayer in public schools,[5] desegregation,[6] and much more. Warren was the leader of the liberal wing; Brennan would provide its intellectual underpinnings. After he was no longer president, Eisenhower purportedly said, "I have made two mistakes, and they are both sitting on the Supreme Court." Or that Warren's nomination was "the biggest damn-fool mistake I ever made," or that his biggest mistake was "the appointment of that dumb son-of-a-***** Earl Warren."]

---

Good catch.

Indeed, Ike was a conservative in more ways than one.

But he certainly wasn't fool proof.

Earl Warren is exhibit A

---

With which decision of the Warren Court do you disagree?

KaiBear said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

“This is the uniparty for the American people watching,” Greene says amid boos from both sides of the aisle. https://t.co/Jk28xqpVjU

— The Recount (@therecount) May 8, 2024

---

She is a real problem, she is even going against Trump now.

---

she's speaking for a majority of the party w/r/t the Speaker.....

Why is it always the conservatives who are the problem for resisting leadership, but not moderates who do exactly the same thing?

---

Majority of the Party???? I don't know what Party you belong to. Johnson's Conservative credentials are better than Greene's! For someone that seems to pride himself on being an analyst, strategic thinker you support some very strange positions. You know better than most that Johnson, ANY GOP Speaker today, is limited in what they can do and get accomplished. Yet, you support whack job, shrill emotional outburst like yesterday that do nothing but create chaos and give more power to the Dems. Johnson knows getting Trump elected is Job #1, the rest is just trying to keep the Nation on the rails until the election.

By the way, she got slapped down by her own Party and the GOP Nominee. Look at the vote. Don't think she is in tuned with the Party.

Worse yet, she has NO concept of how to actually accomplish anything. Her and Gaetz just go off the rails run by pure emotion. Meanwhile, the Dems act as a block and everything is a concerted effort. They are setting Trump and the neo-GOP back decades...

That is my name for the current GOP - neo-GOP. Because it sure ain't Reagan and Goldwater's GOP.

---

Conservative credentials aside, he facilitated the advance of items important to the left and got nothing in return. He did it on military aid. He did it on FISA courts. What did "we" get in return? (nothing that I'm aware of.) She is expressing a view held by a majority of Republicans, who are frustrated that we spent all this money on Israel and Ukraine (which did need spending) and got nothing done to stop the flow of people across the southern border (which does need stopping).

Fact is, moderates in the party are just as unreasonable as MTG. Moderates are threatening to cross aisles if they don't get their way, too. Etc......

Why is it always the responsibility of the Republicans to compromise? Democrats were willing to let Ukraine go down in defeat to protect their border policy. Why are they not the problem here? (answer: because they know GOP moderates will bend to the urge to be the adult in the room.)

Until Democrats are filled with terror that the GOP actually is ready to say no, sit down under a shad tree, and start peeling peaches while the whole show burns to the ground, Democrats will continue to make maximalist demands and wait until Republicans cave.

---

Several issues here.

First, Johnson and through and through Conservative said point blank his view on supporting Ukraine and Israel changed when he saw the intel. You of everyone on this Board should respect that answer. You know he is not at liberty to share, but if a guy with his pedigree is saying there are things you don't know, and we need to fund this. It should carry weight,
actually, his statement about "seeing the intel" concerned the FISA court. He shoulda said "fine, let the FISA court collapse. We'll write better law on a new one next week." And then be prepared to in fact let it collapse and start writing law on a replacement. Until Democrats understand that we are prepared do do exactly that, they will keep winning.

Second. that ship has sailed. The GOP is dysfunctional. You have to ask why? You say moderates are willing to leave, why? The Dem Moderates are ok with the most radical positions of the Squad.
Read what you wrote there. Dem Moderates go along with ALL of the radical positions of the Squad....they NEVER publicly criticize them. Where are all the stories about the Dem moderates saving the party from the Squad, undermining the far left to work with Republicans? Blue Dogs, Blue Dogs, wherefore art thou, Blue Dogs?

What is the GOP extreme asking that is so unpalatable that they are willing to cross.
Like what. GIve us an example of an extreme position that Gaetz and MTG are demanding? I disagree with them on Ukraine funding. Very unwise positions they have taken. But is it really "extreme" to demand fiscal restraint? Is it really extreme to suggest the problem on the border is worse? I mean, where, EXACTLY is the extreme position analogous to the ideological nonsense of the Squad?

Calling them names and yelling at them is not gonna get it done.
Equating MTG with the squad and calling her a radical is not gonna get it done, either, when all she's doing is standing up for things that are broadly popular, if not majoritarian positions within the party.

MAGA needs to take a look in the mirror if life long GOPers are willing to retire and cross than support what they want. But, seems you prefer to call them names. Gaetz and Greene hurt the Party.
And the moderates who create them don't?

---

Never fight with your base, man. Never. It is a bullet train to the hurt locker.

---

MTG is the Republican base?

---

Her views are a far larger slice of the primary electorate than yours are.

Are you going to demonize all of them, or work with them?

---

I'm an Independent
Will you work with me. DJT said he didn't want or need folks who supported other Republicans. I believe him

---

Well, let's see....independents certainly do not have a governing majority, and there aren't any moderates in the Democrat Party. Very monolithic majorities there in favor of open borders, modern monetary theory, green new deal, etc.... Of course, you can join with a quarter or so of the GOP who doesn't like Trump, but that doesn't get you anywhere near a governing majority either. Now, moderates are practical, if we are to believe what we are told, so exactly how do they change direction in Washington while refusing to work with the GOP?

There's an old quote attributed to various people but most often Sam Rayburn which goes "any jackass can kick a barn down; but it takes a carpenter to build one."

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?

---

Is that a bad thing, being a Moderate? Why? When did a Reagan, Eisenhower and Nixon (politically) view become moderate and bad?

---

You act like things are static…Reagan, Eisenhower, and Nixon would all be considered "hard core right wing" by the Media today.

Can you imagine Eisenhower governing the country with 1950s social-moral values…people would be calling him a theocratic fascist

---

Eisenhower used the 82nd to ensure the law was upheld and civil rights moved forward the first civil rights act. No politician would do that today, but look at Eisenhower's social advances. MTG would go ballistic and she represents the base. Reagan granted Amnesty. Nixon took us off the golf standard. All extremely conservative stances, right?

---

Eisenhower enforcing a Supreme Court ruling is just the basic thing you expect of a President.

He actually was very conservative and disliked the Warren Court and it's more activist line on civil rights

[Spearheaded by Chief Justice Earl Warren and Associate Justice William Brennan, the Warren Court radically expanded the reaches of the judicial power and altered constitutional law in a way that reverberates to this day. The changes were legion, including a constitutional right to privacy,[3] the right to remain silent,[4] the elimination of official school prayer in public schools,[5] desegregation,[6] and much more. Warren was the leader of the liberal wing; Brennan would provide its intellectual underpinnings. After he was no longer president, Eisenhower purportedly said, "I have made two mistakes, and they are both sitting on the Supreme Court." Or that Warren's nomination was "the biggest damn-fool mistake I ever made," or that his biggest mistake was "the appointment of that dumb son-of-a-***** Earl Warren."]

---

Good catch.

Indeed, Ike was a conservative in more ways than one.

But he certainly wasn't fool proof.

Earl Warren is exhibit A

---

Eisenhower was a moderate Republican. This is his 1956 platform. He:
expanded SS Act of 1956
Submerged land act giving states control of waterfront
US Information Agency
Refuge Relieve Act 215k refuges
Housing Act of 1954
SE Asia Collective Defense Treaty
Mutual Defense Treaty (Tawain)
Ex Order 10590 Equal Employment
National Highway Program
Fed Highway Act of 1956 (Interstate)
Eisenhower Doctrine
Civil Rights Act of 1957
Housing Stimulus Act
Created NASA
Signed Statehood for Alaska and Hawaii
Sent Marines to Lebanon
Congratulated Kennedy on winning...

There are more. None of those would be supported by the current GOP. Eisenhower is a moderate, period. You talk of Civil Rights and Warren, yet he signed 3 Civil Rights laws. The Interstate program is still the biggest Govt spend. He defended unions. He raised SS. He brought in refuges, over 200k. MTG would sign off on all of that, huh?









https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-platform-1956

Thought we agreed NOT to comment on each others posts ?

Go away.

KaiBear said:

---

Thought we agreed NOT to comment on each others posts ?

Go away.

---

Them do not comment on mine. I am sick of having to correct you... Wrong is wrong.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

“This is the uniparty for the American people watching,” Greene says amid boos from both sides of the aisle. https://t.co/Jk28xqpVjU

— The Recount (@therecount) May 8, 2024

---

She is a real problem, she is even going against Trump now.

---

she's speaking for a majority of the party w/r/t the Speaker.....

Why is it always the conservatives who are the problem for resisting leadership, but not moderates who do exactly the same thing?

---

Majority of the Party???? I don't know what Party you belong to. Johnson's Conservative credentials are better than Greene's! For someone that seems to pride himself on being an analyst, strategic thinker you support some very strange positions. You know better than most that Johnson, ANY GOP Speaker today, is limited in what they can do and get accomplished. Yet, you support whack job, shrill emotional outburst like yesterday that do nothing but create chaos and give more power to the Dems. Johnson knows getting Trump elected is Job #1, the rest is just trying to keep the Nation on the rails until the election.

By the way, she got slapped down by her own Party and the GOP Nominee. Look at the vote. Don't think she is in tuned with the Party.

Worse yet, she has NO concept of how to actually accomplish anything. Her and Gaetz just go off the rails run by pure emotion. Meanwhile, the Dems act as a block and everything is a concerted effort. They are setting Trump and the neo-GOP back decades...

That is my name for the current GOP - neo-GOP. Because it sure ain't Reagan and Goldwater's GOP.

---

Conservative credentials aside, he facilitated the advance of items important to the left and got nothing in return. He did it on military aid. He did it on FISA courts. What did "we" get in return? (nothing that I'm aware of.) She is expressing a view held by a majority of Republicans, who are frustrated that we spent all this money on Israel and Ukraine (which did need spending) and got nothing done to stop the flow of people across the southern border (which does need stopping).

Fact is, moderates in the party are just as unreasonable as MTG. Moderates are threatening to cross aisles if they don't get their way, too. Etc......

Why is it always the responsibility of the Republicans to compromise? Democrats were willing to let Ukraine go down in defeat to protect their border policy. Why are they not the problem here? (answer: because they know GOP moderates will bend to the urge to be the adult in the room.)

Until Democrats are filled with terror that the GOP actually is ready to say no, sit down under a shad tree, and start peeling peaches while the whole show burns to the ground, Democrats will continue to make maximalist demands and wait until Republicans cave.

---

Several issues here.

First, Johnson and through and through Conservative said point blank his view on supporting Ukraine and Israel changed when he saw the intel. You of everyone on this Board should respect that answer. You know he is not at liberty to share, but if a guy with his pedigree is saying there are things you don't know, and we need to fund this. It should carry weight,
actually, his statement about "seeing the intel" concerned the FISA court. He shoulda said "fine, let the FISA court collapse. We'll write better law on a new one next week." And then be prepared to in fact let it collapse and start writing law on a replacement. Until Democrats understand that we are prepared do do exactly that, they will keep winning.

Second. that ship has sailed. The GOP is dysfunctional. You have to ask why? You say moderates are willing to leave, why? The Dem Moderates are ok with the most radical positions of the Squad.
Read what you wrote there. Dem Moderates go along with ALL of the radical positions of the Squad....they NEVER publicly criticize them. Where are all the stories about the Dem moderates saving the party from the Squad, undermining the far left to work with Republicans? Blue Dogs, Blue Dogs, wherefore art thou, Blue Dogs?

What is the GOP extreme asking that is so unpalatable that they are willing to cross.
Like what. GIve us an example of an extreme position that Gaetz and MTG are demanding? I disagree with them on Ukraine funding. Very unwise positions they have taken. But is it really "extreme" to demand fiscal restraint? Is it really extreme to suggest the problem on the border is worse? I mean, where, EXACTLY is the extreme position analogous to the ideological nonsense of the Squad?

Calling them names and yelling at them is not gonna get it done.
Equating MTG with the squad and calling her a radical is not gonna get it done, either, when all she's doing is standing up for things that are broadly popular, if not majoritarian positions within the party.

MAGA needs to take a look in the mirror if life long GOPers are willing to retire and cross than support what they want. But, seems you prefer to call them names. Gaetz and Greene hurt the Party.
And the moderates who create them don't?

---

Never fight with your base, man. Never. It is a bullet train to the hurt locker.

---

MTG is the Republican base?

---

Her views are a far larger slice of the primary electorate than yours are.

Are you going to demonize all of them, or work with them?

---

I'm an Independent
Will you work with me. DJT said he didn't want or need folks who supported other Republicans. I believe him

---

Well, let's see....independents certainly do not have a governing majority, and there aren't any moderates in the Democrat Party. Very monolithic majorities there in favor of open borders, modern monetary theory, green new deal, etc.... Of course, you can join with a quarter or so of the GOP who doesn't like Trump, but that doesn't get you anywhere near a governing majority either. Now, moderates are practical, if we are to believe what we are told, so exactly how do they change direction in Washington while refusing to work with the GOP?

There's an old quote attributed to various people but most often Sam Rayburn which goes "any jackass can kick a barn down; but it takes a carpenter to build one."

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?

---

Is that a bad thing, being a Moderate? Why? When did a Reagan, Eisenhower and Nixon (politically) view become moderate and bad?

---

You act like things are static…Reagan, Eisenhower, and Nixon would all be considered "hard core right wing" by the Media today.

Can you imagine Eisenhower governing the country with 1950s social-moral values…people would be calling him a theocratic fascist

---

Eisenhower used the 82nd to ensure the law was upheld and civil rights moved forward the first civil rights act. No politician would do that today, but look at Eisenhower's social advances. MTG would go ballistic and she represents the base. Reagan granted Amnesty. Nixon took us off the golf standard. All extremely conservative stances, right?

---

Eisenhower enforcing a Supreme Court ruling is just the basic thing you expect of a President.

He actually was very conservative and disliked the Warren Court and it's more activist line on civil rights

[Spearheaded by Chief Justice Earl Warren and Associate Justice William Brennan, the Warren Court radically expanded the reaches of the judicial power and altered constitutional law in a way that reverberates to this day. The changes were legion, including a constitutional right to privacy,[3] the right to remain silent,[4] the elimination of official school prayer in public schools,[5] desegregation,[6] and much more. Warren was the leader of the liberal wing; Brennan would provide its intellectual underpinnings. After he was no longer president, Eisenhower purportedly said, "I have made two mistakes, and they are both sitting on the Supreme Court." Or that Warren's nomination was "the biggest damn-fool mistake I ever made," or that his biggest mistake was "the appointment of that dumb son-of-a-***** Earl Warren."]

---

You are kidding right? What he did, a real action, by sending the 82nd to Ark
was basic? .

---

Basic to the job? Yes

The President has to follow the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Eisenhower was a good man and a good President and he was following the law.

Now that being said it's important to remember that he was very conservative and was deeply upset with the activist nature of the Warren Court

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

“This is the uniparty for the American people watching,” Greene says amid boos from both sides of the aisle. https://t.co/Jk28xqpVjU

— The Recount (@therecount) May 8, 2024

---

She is a real problem, she is even going against Trump now.

---

she's speaking for a majority of the party w/r/t the Speaker.....

Why is it always the conservatives who are the problem for resisting leadership, but not moderates who do exactly the same thing?

---

Majority of the Party???? I don't know what Party you belong to. Johnson's Conservative credentials are better than Greene's! For someone that seems to pride himself on being an analyst, strategic thinker you support some very strange positions. You know better than most that Johnson, ANY GOP Speaker today, is limited in what they can do and get accomplished. Yet, you support whack job, shrill emotional outburst like yesterday that do nothing but create chaos and give more power to the Dems. Johnson knows getting Trump elected is Job #1, the rest is just trying to keep the Nation on the rails until the election.

By the way, she got slapped down by her own Party and the GOP Nominee. Look at the vote. Don't think she is in tuned with the Party.

Worse yet, she has NO concept of how to actually accomplish anything. Her and Gaetz just go off the rails run by pure emotion. Meanwhile, the Dems act as a block and everything is a concerted effort. They are setting Trump and the neo-GOP back decades...

That is my name for the current GOP - neo-GOP. Because it sure ain't Reagan and Goldwater's GOP.

---

Conservative credentials aside, he facilitated the advance of items important to the left and got nothing in return. He did it on military aid. He did it on FISA courts. What did "we" get in return? (nothing that I'm aware of.) She is expressing a view held by a majority of Republicans, who are frustrated that we spent all this money on Israel and Ukraine (which did need spending) and got nothing done to stop the flow of people across the southern border (which does need stopping).

Fact is, moderates in the party are just as unreasonable as MTG. Moderates are threatening to cross aisles if they don't get their way, too. Etc......

Why is it always the responsibility of the Republicans to compromise? Democrats were willing to let Ukraine go down in defeat to protect their border policy. Why are they not the problem here? (answer: because they know GOP moderates will bend to the urge to be the adult in the room.)

Until Democrats are filled with terror that the GOP actually is ready to say no, sit down under a shad tree, and start peeling peaches while the whole show burns to the ground, Democrats will continue to make maximalist demands and wait until Republicans cave.

---

Several issues here.

First, Johnson and through and through Conservative said point blank his view on supporting Ukraine and Israel changed when he saw the intel. You of everyone on this Board should respect that answer. You know he is not at liberty to share, but if a guy with his pedigree is saying there are things you don't know, and we need to fund this. It should carry weight,
actually, his statement about "seeing the intel" concerned the FISA court. He shoulda said "fine, let the FISA court collapse. We'll write better law on a new one next week." And then be prepared to in fact let it collapse and start writing law on a replacement. Until Democrats understand that we are prepared do do exactly that, they will keep winning.

Second. that ship has sailed. The GOP is dysfunctional. You have to ask why? You say moderates are willing to leave, why? The Dem Moderates are ok with the most radical positions of the Squad.
Read what you wrote there. Dem Moderates go along with ALL of the radical positions of the Squad....they NEVER publicly criticize them. Where are all the stories about the Dem moderates saving the party from the Squad, undermining the far left to work with Republicans? Blue Dogs, Blue Dogs, wherefore art thou, Blue Dogs?

What is the GOP extreme asking that is so unpalatable that they are willing to cross.
Like what. GIve us an example of an extreme position that Gaetz and MTG are demanding? I disagree with them on Ukraine funding. Very unwise positions they have taken. But is it really "extreme" to demand fiscal restraint? Is it really extreme to suggest the problem on the border is worse? I mean, where, EXACTLY is the extreme position analogous to the ideological nonsense of the Squad?

Calling them names and yelling at them is not gonna get it done.
Equating MTG with the squad and calling her a radical is not gonna get it done, either, when all she's doing is standing up for things that are broadly popular, if not majoritarian positions within the party.

MAGA needs to take a look in the mirror if life long GOPers are willing to retire and cross than support what they want. But, seems you prefer to call them names. Gaetz and Greene hurt the Party.
And the moderates who create them don't?

---

Never fight with your base, man. Never. It is a bullet train to the hurt locker.

---

MTG is the Republican base?

---

Her views are a far larger slice of the primary electorate than yours are.

Are you going to demonize all of them, or work with them?

---

I'm an Independent
Will you work with me. DJT said he didn't want or need folks who supported other Republicans. I believe him

---

Well, let's see....independents certainly do not have a governing majority, and there aren't any moderates in the Democrat Party. Very monolithic majorities there in favor of open borders, modern monetary theory, green new deal, etc.... Of course, you can join with a quarter or so of the GOP who doesn't like Trump, but that doesn't get you anywhere near a governing majority either. Now, moderates are practical, if we are to believe what we are told, so exactly how do they change direction in Washington while refusing to work with the GOP?

There's an old quote attributed to various people but most often Sam Rayburn which goes "any jackass can kick a barn down; but it takes a carpenter to build one."

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?

---

Is that a bad thing, being a Moderate? Why? When did a Reagan, Eisenhower and Nixon (politically) view become moderate and bad?

---

You act like things are static…Reagan, Eisenhower, and Nixon would all be considered "hard core right wing" by the Media today.

Can you imagine Eisenhower governing the country with 1950s social-moral values…people would be calling him a theocratic fascist

---

Eisenhower used the 82nd to ensure the law was upheld and civil rights moved forward the first civil rights act. No politician would do that today, but look at Eisenhower's social advances. MTG would go ballistic and she represents the base. Reagan granted Amnesty. Nixon took us off the golf standard. All extremely conservative stances, right?

---

Eisenhower enforcing a Supreme Court ruling is just the basic thing you expect of a President.

He actually was very conservative and disliked the Warren Court and it's more activist line on civil rights

[Spearheaded by Chief Justice Earl Warren and Associate Justice William Brennan, the Warren Court radically expanded the reaches of the judicial power and altered constitutional law in a way that reverberates to this day. The changes were legion, including a constitutional right to privacy,[3] the right to remain silent,[4] the elimination of official school prayer in public schools,[5] desegregation,[6] and much more. Warren was the leader of the liberal wing; Brennan would provide its intellectual underpinnings. After he was no longer president, Eisenhower purportedly said, "I have made two mistakes, and they are both sitting on the Supreme Court." Or that Warren's nomination was "the biggest damn-fool mistake I ever made," or that his biggest mistake was "the appointment of that dumb son-of-a-***** Earl Warren."]

---

You are kidding right? What he did, a real action, by sending the 82nd to Ark
was basic? .

---

Basic to the job? Yes

The President has to follow the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Eisenhower was a good man and a good President and he was following the law.

Now that being said it's important to remember that he was very conservative and was deeply upset with the activist nature of the Warren Court

---

Look at what he did. Read his platform. Ike was a true moderate. He believed the US Govt should help US citizens. Read a little about him. He was not a MAGA Conservative, he was a globalist, he believed in a social safety net, he signed 3 civil rights laws and used military. He was a fiscal conservative. He didn't blink to help Kennedy,even though opposing Party, or congratulate him on winning. Spending? Interstate? He took in 200k refuges. The list goes on. I think Eisenhower was our best modern President, but he was no hardcore Conservative. Hell, he didn't know whether he was running a GOP or Dem until right before.

Basic to the job? I would say using active duty troops is extraordinary. Name all the times in US history active troops were used internally outside of rescue? They are few and far between. It was no basic thing.

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

“This is the uniparty for the American people watching,” Greene says amid boos from both sides of the aisle. https://t.co/Jk28xqpVjU

— The Recount (@therecount) May 8, 2024

---

She is a real problem, she is even going against Trump now.

---

she's speaking for a majority of the party w/r/t the Speaker.....

Why is it always the conservatives who are the problem for resisting leadership, but not moderates who do exactly the same thing?

---

Majority of the Party???? I don't know what Party you belong to. Johnson's Conservative credentials are better than Greene's! For someone that seems to pride himself on being an analyst, strategic thinker you support some very strange positions. You know better than most that Johnson, ANY GOP Speaker today, is limited in what they can do and get accomplished. Yet, you support whack job, shrill emotional outburst like yesterday that do nothing but create chaos and give more power to the Dems. Johnson knows getting Trump elected is Job #1, the rest is just trying to keep the Nation on the rails until the election.

By the way, she got slapped down by her own Party and the GOP Nominee. Look at the vote. Don't think she is in tuned with the Party.

Worse yet, she has NO concept of how to actually accomplish anything. Her and Gaetz just go off the rails run by pure emotion. Meanwhile, the Dems act as a block and everything is a concerted effort. They are setting Trump and the neo-GOP back decades...

That is my name for the current GOP - neo-GOP. Because it sure ain't Reagan and Goldwater's GOP.

---

Conservative credentials aside, he facilitated the advance of items important to the left and got nothing in return. He did it on military aid. He did it on FISA courts. What did "we" get in return? (nothing that I'm aware of.) She is expressing a view held by a majority of Republicans, who are frustrated that we spent all this money on Israel and Ukraine (which did need spending) and got nothing done to stop the flow of people across the southern border (which does need stopping).

Fact is, moderates in the party are just as unreasonable as MTG. Moderates are threatening to cross aisles if they don't get their way, too. Etc......

Why is it always the responsibility of the Republicans to compromise? Democrats were willing to let Ukraine go down in defeat to protect their border policy. Why are they not the problem here? (answer: because they know GOP moderates will bend to the urge to be the adult in the room.)

Until Democrats are filled with terror that the GOP actually is ready to say no, sit down under a shad tree, and start peeling peaches while the whole show burns to the ground, Democrats will continue to make maximalist demands and wait until Republicans cave.

---

Several issues here.

First, Johnson and through and through Conservative said point blank his view on supporting Ukraine and Israel changed when he saw the intel. You of everyone on this Board should respect that answer. You know he is not at liberty to share, but if a guy with his pedigree is saying there are things you don't know, and we need to fund this. It should carry weight,
actually, his statement about "seeing the intel" concerned the FISA court. He shoulda said "fine, let the FISA court collapse. We'll write better law on a new one next week." And then be prepared to in fact let it collapse and start writing law on a replacement. Until Democrats understand that we are prepared do do exactly that, they will keep winning.

Second. that ship has sailed. The GOP is dysfunctional. You have to ask why? You say moderates are willing to leave, why? The Dem Moderates are ok with the most radical positions of the Squad.
Read what you wrote there. Dem Moderates go along with ALL of the radical positions of the Squad....they NEVER publicly criticize them. Where are all the stories about the Dem moderates saving the party from the Squad, undermining the far left to work with Republicans? Blue Dogs, Blue Dogs, wherefore art thou, Blue Dogs?

What is the GOP extreme asking that is so unpalatable that they are willing to cross.
Like what. GIve us an example of an extreme position that Gaetz and MTG are demanding? I disagree with them on Ukraine funding. Very unwise positions they have taken. But is it really "extreme" to demand fiscal restraint? Is it really extreme to suggest the problem on the border is worse? I mean, where, EXACTLY is the extreme position analogous to the ideological nonsense of the Squad?

Calling them names and yelling at them is not gonna get it done.
Equating MTG with the squad and calling her a radical is not gonna get it done, either, when all she's doing is standing up for things that are broadly popular, if not majoritarian positions within the party.

MAGA needs to take a look in the mirror if life long GOPers are willing to retire and cross than support what they want. But, seems you prefer to call them names. Gaetz and Greene hurt the Party.
And the moderates who create them don't?

---

Never fight with your base, man. Never. It is a bullet train to the hurt locker.

---

MTG is the Republican base?

---

Her views are a far larger slice of the primary electorate than yours are.

Are you going to demonize all of them, or work with them?

---

I'm an Independent
Will you work with me. DJT said he didn't want or need folks who supported other Republicans. I believe him

---

Well, let's see....independents certainly do not have a governing majority, and there aren't any moderates in the Democrat Party. Very monolithic majorities there in favor of open borders, modern monetary theory, green new deal, etc.... Of course, you can join with a quarter or so of the GOP who doesn't like Trump, but that doesn't get you anywhere near a governing majority either. Now, moderates are practical, if we are to believe what we are told, so exactly how do they change direction in Washington while refusing to work with the GOP?

There's an old quote attributed to various people but most often Sam Rayburn which goes "any jackass can kick a barn down; but it takes a carpenter to build one."

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?

Your reasoning is the proverbial "Christmas Goose" of presentism. 200k refugees from mostly the front-lines of WWII restructuring and Cold War pressures is the same as open border migration policy of Biden Admin? Do you really think the guy who sent the 101st Airborne to enforce law at LR Central is going to condone the "Y'all Come!" prosecutorial discretion concerning cartel human smuggling of millions of people across our southern border?

I suggest a stronger case could be made that today's Democrats would treat Ike exactly like a MAGA Republican - a proto-fascist - precisely because he would most certainly be somewhat of a stickler for following letter and spirit of law.

FLBear5630 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Thought we agreed NOT to comment on each others posts ?

Go away.

---

Them do not comment on mine. I am sick of having to correct you... Wrong is wrong.

---

Clearly responded to RedBrickBear; not to you.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

“This is the uniparty for the American people watching,” Greene says amid boos from both sides of the aisle. https://t.co/Jk28xqpVjU

— The Recount (@therecount) May 8, 2024

---

She is a real problem, she is even going against Trump now.

---

she's speaking for a majority of the party w/r/t the Speaker.....

Why is it always the conservatives who are the problem for resisting leadership, but not moderates who do exactly the same thing?

---

Majority of the Party???? I don't know what Party you belong to. Johnson's Conservative credentials are better than Greene's! For someone that seems to pride himself on being an analyst, strategic thinker you support some very strange positions. You know better than most that Johnson, ANY GOP Speaker today, is limited in what they can do and get accomplished. Yet, you support whack job, shrill emotional outburst like yesterday that do nothing but create chaos and give more power to the Dems. Johnson knows getting Trump elected is Job #1, the rest is just trying to keep the Nation on the rails until the election.

By the way, she got slapped down by her own Party and the GOP Nominee. Look at the vote. Don't think she is in tuned with the Party.

Worse yet, she has NO concept of how to actually accomplish anything. Her and Gaetz just go off the rails run by pure emotion. Meanwhile, the Dems act as a block and everything is a concerted effort. They are setting Trump and the neo-GOP back decades...

That is my name for the current GOP - neo-GOP. Because it sure ain't Reagan and Goldwater's GOP.

---

Conservative credentials aside, he facilitated the advance of items important to the left and got nothing in return. He did it on military aid. He did it on FISA courts. What did "we" get in return? (nothing that I'm aware of.) She is expressing a view held by a majority of Republicans, who are frustrated that we spent all this money on Israel and Ukraine (which did need spending) and got nothing done to stop the flow of people across the southern border (which does need stopping).

Fact is, moderates in the party are just as unreasonable as MTG. Moderates are threatening to cross aisles if they don't get their way, too. Etc......

Why is it always the responsibility of the Republicans to compromise? Democrats were willing to let Ukraine go down in defeat to protect their border policy. Why are they not the problem here? (answer: because they know GOP moderates will bend to the urge to be the adult in the room.)

Until Democrats are filled with terror that the GOP actually is ready to say no, sit down under a shad tree, and start peeling peaches while the whole show burns to the ground, Democrats will continue to make maximalist demands and wait until Republicans cave.

---

Several issues here.

First, Johnson and through and through Conservative said point blank his view on supporting Ukraine and Israel changed when he saw the intel. You of everyone on this Board should respect that answer. You know he is not at liberty to share, but if a guy with his pedigree is saying there are things you don't know, and we need to fund this. It should carry weight,
actually, his statement about "seeing the intel" concerned the FISA court. He shoulda said "fine, let the FISA court collapse. We'll write better law on a new one next week." And then be prepared to in fact let it collapse and start writing law on a replacement. Until Democrats understand that we are prepared do do exactly that, they will keep winning.

Second. that ship has sailed. The GOP is dysfunctional. You have to ask why? You say moderates are willing to leave, why? The Dem Moderates are ok with the most radical positions of the Squad.
Read what you wrote there. Dem Moderates go along with ALL of the radical positions of the Squad....they NEVER publicly criticize them. Where are all the stories about the Dem moderates saving the party from the Squad, undermining the far left to work with Republicans? Blue Dogs, Blue Dogs, wherefore art thou, Blue Dogs?

What is the GOP extreme asking that is so unpalatable that they are willing to cross.
Like what. GIve us an example of an extreme position that Gaetz and MTG are demanding? I disagree with them on Ukraine funding. Very unwise positions they have taken. But is it really "extreme" to demand fiscal restraint? Is it really extreme to suggest the problem on the border is worse? I mean, where, EXACTLY is the extreme position analogous to the ideological nonsense of the Squad?

Calling them names and yelling at them is not gonna get it done.
Equating MTG with the squad and calling her a radical is not gonna get it done, either, when all she's doing is standing up for things that are broadly popular, if not majoritarian positions within the party.

MAGA needs to take a look in the mirror if life long GOPers are willing to retire and cross than support what they want. But, seems you prefer to call them names. Gaetz and Greene hurt the Party.
And the moderates who create them don't?

---

Never fight with your base, man. Never. It is a bullet train to the hurt locker.

---

MTG is the Republican base?

---

Her views are a far larger slice of the primary electorate than yours are.

Are you going to demonize all of them, or work with them?

---

I'm an Independent
Will you work with me. DJT said he didn't want or need folks who supported other Republicans. I believe him

---

Well, let's see....independents certainly do not have a governing majority, and there aren't any moderates in the Democrat Party. Very monolithic majorities there in favor of open borders, modern monetary theory, green new deal, etc.... Of course, you can join with a quarter or so of the GOP who doesn't like Trump, but that doesn't get you anywhere near a governing majority either. Now, moderates are practical, if we are to believe what we are told, so exactly how do they change direction in Washington while refusing to work with the GOP?

There's an old quote attributed to various people but most often Sam Rayburn which goes "any jackass can kick a barn down; but it takes a carpenter to build one."

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?

---

Is that a bad thing, being a Moderate? Why? When did a Reagan, Eisenhower and Nixon (politically) view become moderate and bad?

---

When it started promoting globalist bs, high taxes, massive growth of government, unlimited immigration and economic destruction.

whiterock said:

---

Your reasoning is the proverbial "Christmas Goose" of presentism. 200k refugees from mostly the front-lines of WWII restructuring and Cold War pressures is the same as open border migration policy of Biden Admin? Do you really think the guy who sent the 101st Airborne to enforce law at LR Central is going to condone the "Y'all Come!" prosecutorial discretion concerning cartel human smuggling of millions of people across our southern border?

I suggest a stronger case could be made that today's Democrats would treat Ike exactly like a MAGA Republican - a proto-fascist - precisely because he would most certainly be somewhat of a stickler for following letter and spirit of law.

---

That is a very good point, Ike would be a stickler for following the law and accountability. I never said he was a Liberal, only a moderate on social issues. That seem to the same as a Progressive!

Doc Holliday said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

“This is the uniparty for the American people watching,” Greene says amid boos from both sides of the aisle. https://t.co/Jk28xqpVjU

— The Recount (@therecount) May 8, 2024

---

She is a real problem, she is even going against Trump now.

---

she's speaking for a majority of the party w/r/t the Speaker.....

Why is it always the conservatives who are the problem for resisting leadership, but not moderates who do exactly the same thing?

---

Majority of the Party???? I don't know what Party you belong to. Johnson's Conservative credentials are better than Greene's! For someone that seems to pride himself on being an analyst, strategic thinker you support some very strange positions. You know better than most that Johnson, ANY GOP Speaker today, is limited in what they can do and get accomplished. Yet, you support whack job, shrill emotional outburst like yesterday that do nothing but create chaos and give more power to the Dems. Johnson knows getting Trump elected is Job #1, the rest is just trying to keep the Nation on the rails until the election.

By the way, she got slapped down by her own Party and the GOP Nominee. Look at the vote. Don't think she is in tuned with the Party.

Worse yet, she has NO concept of how to actually accomplish anything. Her and Gaetz just go off the rails run by pure emotion. Meanwhile, the Dems act as a block and everything is a concerted effort. They are setting Trump and the neo-GOP back decades...

That is my name for the current GOP - neo-GOP. Because it sure ain't Reagan and Goldwater's GOP.

---

Conservative credentials aside, he facilitated the advance of items important to the left and got nothing in return. He did it on military aid. He did it on FISA courts. What did "we" get in return? (nothing that I'm aware of.) She is expressing a view held by a majority of Republicans, who are frustrated that we spent all this money on Israel and Ukraine (which did need spending) and got nothing done to stop the flow of people across the southern border (which does need stopping).

Fact is, moderates in the party are just as unreasonable as MTG. Moderates are threatening to cross aisles if they don't get their way, too. Etc......

Why is it always the responsibility of the Republicans to compromise? Democrats were willing to let Ukraine go down in defeat to protect their border policy. Why are they not the problem here? (answer: because they know GOP moderates will bend to the urge to be the adult in the room.)

Until Democrats are filled with terror that the GOP actually is ready to say no, sit down under a shad tree, and start peeling peaches while the whole show burns to the ground, Democrats will continue to make maximalist demands and wait until Republicans cave.

---

Several issues here.

First, Johnson and through and through Conservative said point blank his view on supporting Ukraine and Israel changed when he saw the intel. You of everyone on this Board should respect that answer. You know he is not at liberty to share, but if a guy with his pedigree is saying there are things you don't know, and we need to fund this. It should carry weight,
actually, his statement about "seeing the intel" concerned the FISA court. He shoulda said "fine, let the FISA court collapse. We'll write better law on a new one next week." And then be prepared to in fact let it collapse and start writing law on a replacement. Until Democrats understand that we are prepared do do exactly that, they will keep winning.

Second. that ship has sailed. The GOP is dysfunctional. You have to ask why? You say moderates are willing to leave, why? The Dem Moderates are ok with the most radical positions of the Squad.
Read what you wrote there. Dem Moderates go along with ALL of the radical positions of the Squad....they NEVER publicly criticize them. Where are all the stories about the Dem moderates saving the party from the Squad, undermining the far left to work with Republicans? Blue Dogs, Blue Dogs, wherefore art thou, Blue Dogs?

What is the GOP extreme asking that is so unpalatable that they are willing to cross.
Like what. GIve us an example of an extreme position that Gaetz and MTG are demanding? I disagree with them on Ukraine funding. Very unwise positions they have taken. But is it really "extreme" to demand fiscal restraint? Is it really extreme to suggest the problem on the border is worse? I mean, where, EXACTLY is the extreme position analogous to the ideological nonsense of the Squad?

Calling them names and yelling at them is not gonna get it done.
Equating MTG with the squad and calling her a radical is not gonna get it done, either, when all she's doing is standing up for things that are broadly popular, if not majoritarian positions within the party.

MAGA needs to take a look in the mirror if life long GOPers are willing to retire and cross than support what they want. But, seems you prefer to call them names. Gaetz and Greene hurt the Party.
And the moderates who create them don't?

---

Never fight with your base, man. Never. It is a bullet train to the hurt locker.

---

MTG is the Republican base?

---

Her views are a far larger slice of the primary electorate than yours are.

Are you going to demonize all of them, or work with them?

---

I'm an Independent
Will you work with me. DJT said he didn't want or need folks who supported other Republicans. I believe him

---

Well, let's see....independents certainly do not have a governing majority, and there aren't any moderates in the Democrat Party. Very monolithic majorities there in favor of open borders, modern monetary theory, green new deal, etc.... Of course, you can join with a quarter or so of the GOP who doesn't like Trump, but that doesn't get you anywhere near a governing majority either. Now, moderates are practical, if we are to believe what we are told, so exactly how do they change direction in Washington while refusing to work with the GOP?

There's an old quote attributed to various people but most often Sam Rayburn which goes "any jackass can kick a barn down; but it takes a carpenter to build one."

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?

---

Is that a bad thing, being a Moderate? Why? When did a Reagan, Eisenhower and Nixon (politically) view become moderate and bad?

---

When it started promoting globalist bs, high taxes, massive growth of government, unlimited immigration and economic destruction.

---

All items that premier Liberals have promoted in the Past. It is not as cut and dry as you may like to believe.

Reagan was a Globalist.
Reagan signed amnesty
Reagan blew up the deficit.

Reagan a liberal? Ike had his items. Trump had his. My point is that the reality of governing is not black and white. What many on this Board are asking is unrealistic. Trump if he wins, will govern very close to what we saw in 2016-20. You are not getting responsible spending with Trump. Even if you do, like Ike, there are compromises that have to be made - Globalist, Immigration, Spending? Pick...

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

“This is the uniparty for the American people watching,” Greene says amid boos from both sides of the aisle. https://t.co/Jk28xqpVjU

— The Recount (@therecount) May 8, 2024

---

She is a real problem, she is even going against Trump now.

---

she's speaking for a majority of the party w/r/t the Speaker.....

Why is it always the conservatives who are the problem for resisting leadership, but not moderates who do exactly the same thing?

---

Majority of the Party???? I don't know what Party you belong to. Johnson's Conservative credentials are better than Greene's! For someone that seems to pride himself on being an analyst, strategic thinker you support some very strange positions. You know better than most that Johnson, ANY GOP Speaker today, is limited in what they can do and get accomplished. Yet, you support whack job, shrill emotional outburst like yesterday that do nothing but create chaos and give more power to the Dems. Johnson knows getting Trump elected is Job #1, the rest is just trying to keep the Nation on the rails until the election.

By the way, she got slapped down by her own Party and the GOP Nominee. Look at the vote. Don't think she is in tuned with the Party.

Worse yet, she has NO concept of how to actually accomplish anything. Her and Gaetz just go off the rails run by pure emotion. Meanwhile, the Dems act as a block and everything is a concerted effort. They are setting Trump and the neo-GOP back decades...

That is my name for the current GOP - neo-GOP. Because it sure ain't Reagan and Goldwater's GOP.

---

Conservative credentials aside, he facilitated the advance of items important to the left and got nothing in return. He did it on military aid. He did it on FISA courts. What did "we" get in return? (nothing that I'm aware of.) She is expressing a view held by a majority of Republicans, who are frustrated that we spent all this money on Israel and Ukraine (which did need spending) and got nothing done to stop the flow of people across the southern border (which does need stopping).

Fact is, moderates in the party are just as unreasonable as MTG. Moderates are threatening to cross aisles if they don't get their way, too. Etc......

Why is it always the responsibility of the Republicans to compromise? Democrats were willing to let Ukraine go down in defeat to protect their border policy. Why are they not the problem here? (answer: because they know GOP moderates will bend to the urge to be the adult in the room.)

Until Democrats are filled with terror that the GOP actually is ready to say no, sit down under a shad tree, and start peeling peaches while the whole show burns to the ground, Democrats will continue to make maximalist demands and wait until Republicans cave.

---

Several issues here.

First, Johnson and through and through Conservative said point blank his view on supporting Ukraine and Israel changed when he saw the intel. You of everyone on this Board should respect that answer. You know he is not at liberty to share, but if a guy with his pedigree is saying there are things you don't know, and we need to fund this. It should carry weight,
actually, his statement about "seeing the intel" concerned the FISA court. He shoulda said "fine, let the FISA court collapse. We'll write better law on a new one next week." And then be prepared to in fact let it collapse and start writing law on a replacement. Until Democrats understand that we are prepared do do exactly that, they will keep winning.

Second. that ship has sailed. The GOP is dysfunctional. You have to ask why? You say moderates are willing to leave, why? The Dem Moderates are ok with the most radical positions of the Squad.
Read what you wrote there. Dem Moderates go along with ALL of the radical positions of the Squad....they NEVER publicly criticize them. Where are all the stories about the Dem moderates saving the party from the Squad, undermining the far left to work with Republicans? Blue Dogs, Blue Dogs, wherefore art thou, Blue Dogs?

What is the GOP extreme asking that is so unpalatable that they are willing to cross.
Like what. GIve us an example of an extreme position that Gaetz and MTG are demanding? I disagree with them on Ukraine funding. Very unwise positions they have taken. But is it really "extreme" to demand fiscal restraint? Is it really extreme to suggest the problem on the border is worse? I mean, where, EXACTLY is the extreme position analogous to the ideological nonsense of the Squad?

Calling them names and yelling at them is not gonna get it done.
Equating MTG with the squad and calling her a radical is not gonna get it done, either, when all she's doing is standing up for things that are broadly popular, if not majoritarian positions within the party.

MAGA needs to take a look in the mirror if life long GOPers are willing to retire and cross than support what they want. But, seems you prefer to call them names. Gaetz and Greene hurt the Party.
And the moderates who create them don't?

---

Never fight with your base, man. Never. It is a bullet train to the hurt locker.

---

MTG is the Republican base?

---

Her views are a far larger slice of the primary electorate than yours are.

Are you going to demonize all of them, or work with them?

---

I'm an Independent
Will you work with me. DJT said he didn't want or need folks who supported other Republicans. I believe him

---

Well, let's see....independents certainly do not have a governing majority, and there aren't any moderates in the Democrat Party. Very monolithic majorities there in favor of open borders, modern monetary theory, green new deal, etc.... Of course, you can join with a quarter or so of the GOP who doesn't like Trump, but that doesn't get you anywhere near a governing majority either. Now, moderates are practical, if we are to believe what we are told, so exactly how do they change direction in Washington while refusing to work with the GOP?

There's an old quote attributed to various people but most often Sam Rayburn which goes "any jackass can kick a barn down; but it takes a carpenter to build one."

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?

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

“This is the uniparty for the American people watching,” Greene says amid boos from both sides of the aisle. https://t.co/Jk28xqpVjU

— The Recount (@therecount) May 8, 2024

---

She is a real problem, she is even going against Trump now.

---

she's speaking for a majority of the party w/r/t the Speaker.....

Why is it always the conservatives who are the problem for resisting leadership, but not moderates who do exactly the same thing?

---

Majority of the Party???? I don't know what Party you belong to. Johnson's Conservative credentials are better than Greene's! For someone that seems to pride himself on being an analyst, strategic thinker you support some very strange positions. You know better than most that Johnson, ANY GOP Speaker today, is limited in what they can do and get accomplished. Yet, you support whack job, shrill emotional outburst like yesterday that do nothing but create chaos and give more power to the Dems. Johnson knows getting Trump elected is Job #1, the rest is just trying to keep the Nation on the rails until the election.

By the way, she got slapped down by her own Party and the GOP Nominee. Look at the vote. Don't think she is in tuned with the Party.

Worse yet, she has NO concept of how to actually accomplish anything. Her and Gaetz just go off the rails run by pure emotion. Meanwhile, the Dems act as a block and everything is a concerted effort. They are setting Trump and the neo-GOP back decades...

That is my name for the current GOP - neo-GOP. Because it sure ain't Reagan and Goldwater's GOP.

---

Conservative credentials aside, he facilitated the advance of items important to the left and got nothing in return. He did it on military aid. He did it on FISA courts. What did "we" get in return? (nothing that I'm aware of.) She is expressing a view held by a majority of Republicans, who are frustrated that we spent all this money on Israel and Ukraine (which did need spending) and got nothing done to stop the flow of people across the southern border (which does need stopping).

Fact is, moderates in the party are just as unreasonable as MTG. Moderates are threatening to cross aisles if they don't get their way, too. Etc......

Why is it always the responsibility of the Republicans to compromise? Democrats were willing to let Ukraine go down in defeat to protect their border policy. Why are they not the problem here? (answer: because they know GOP moderates will bend to the urge to be the adult in the room.)

Until Democrats are filled with terror that the GOP actually is ready to say no, sit down under a shad tree, and start peeling peaches while the whole show burns to the ground, Democrats will continue to make maximalist demands and wait until Republicans cave.

---

Several issues here.

First, Johnson and through and through Conservative said point blank his view on supporting Ukraine and Israel changed when he saw the intel. You of everyone on this Board should respect that answer. You know he is not at liberty to share, but if a guy with his pedigree is saying there are things you don't know, and we need to fund this. It should carry weight,
actually, his statement about "seeing the intel" concerned the FISA court. He shoulda said "fine, let the FISA court collapse. We'll write better law on a new one next week." And then be prepared to in fact let it collapse and start writing law on a replacement. Until Democrats understand that we are prepared do do exactly that, they will keep winning.

Second. that ship has sailed. The GOP is dysfunctional. You have to ask why? You say moderates are willing to leave, why? The Dem Moderates are ok with the most radical positions of the Squad.
Read what you wrote there. Dem Moderates go along with ALL of the radical positions of the Squad....they NEVER publicly criticize them. Where are all the stories about the Dem moderates saving the party from the Squad, undermining the far left to work with Republicans? Blue Dogs, Blue Dogs, wherefore art thou, Blue Dogs?

What is the GOP extreme asking that is so unpalatable that they are willing to cross.
Like what. GIve us an example of an extreme position that Gaetz and MTG are demanding? I disagree with them on Ukraine funding. Very unwise positions they have taken. But is it really "extreme" to demand fiscal restraint? Is it really extreme to suggest the problem on the border is worse? I mean, where, EXACTLY is the extreme position analogous to the ideological nonsense of the Squad?

Calling them names and yelling at them is not gonna get it done.
Equating MTG with the squad and calling her a radical is not gonna get it done, either, when all she's doing is standing up for things that are broadly popular, if not majoritarian positions within the party.

MAGA needs to take a look in the mirror if life long GOPers are willing to retire and cross than support what they want. But, seems you prefer to call them names. Gaetz and Greene hurt the Party.
And the moderates who create them don't?

---

Never fight with your base, man. Never. It is a bullet train to the hurt locker.

---

MTG is the Republican base?

---

Her views are a far larger slice of the primary electorate than yours are.

Are you going to demonize all of them, or work with them?

---

I'm an Independent
Will you work with me. DJT said he didn't want or need folks who supported other Republicans. I believe him

---

Well, let's see....independents certainly do not have a governing majority, and there aren't any moderates in the Democrat Party. Very monolithic majorities there in favor of open borders, modern monetary theory, green new deal, etc.... Of course, you can join with a quarter or so of the GOP who doesn't like Trump, but that doesn't get you anywhere near a governing majority either. Now, moderates are practical, if we are to believe what we are told, so exactly how do they change direction in Washington while refusing to work with the GOP?

There's an old quote attributed to various people but most often Sam Rayburn which goes "any jackass can kick a barn down; but it takes a carpenter to build one."

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?

---

Tactics are only "real" if there is an actual plan to accomplish the policy. I do not see that with her, she goes shrew and that is really all she has. How much legislation has she sponsored, co-sponsored and/or worked with others? She is in the bottom 10% of Congress. It is just shrill bluster. I don't see how you can call anything she says "policy". Throw sticks in spokes, that is her thing.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

“This is the uniparty for the American people watching,” Greene says amid boos from both sides of the aisle. https://t.co/Jk28xqpVjU

— The Recount (@therecount) May 8, 2024

---

She is a real problem, she is even going against Trump now.

---

she's speaking for a majority of the party w/r/t the Speaker.....

Why is it always the conservatives who are the problem for resisting leadership, but not moderates who do exactly the same thing?

---

Majority of the Party???? I don't know what Party you belong to. Johnson's Conservative credentials are better than Greene's! For someone that seems to pride himself on being an analyst, strategic thinker you support some very strange positions. You know better than most that Johnson, ANY GOP Speaker today, is limited in what they can do and get accomplished. Yet, you support whack job, shrill emotional outburst like yesterday that do nothing but create chaos and give more power to the Dems. Johnson knows getting Trump elected is Job #1, the rest is just trying to keep the Nation on the rails until the election.

By the way, she got slapped down by her own Party and the GOP Nominee. Look at the vote. Don't think she is in tuned with the Party.

Worse yet, she has NO concept of how to actually accomplish anything. Her and Gaetz just go off the rails run by pure emotion. Meanwhile, the Dems act as a block and everything is a concerted effort. They are setting Trump and the neo-GOP back decades...

That is my name for the current GOP - neo-GOP. Because it sure ain't Reagan and Goldwater's GOP.

---

Conservative credentials aside, he facilitated the advance of items important to the left and got nothing in return. He did it on military aid. He did it on FISA courts. What did "we" get in return? (nothing that I'm aware of.) She is expressing a view held by a majority of Republicans, who are frustrated that we spent all this money on Israel and Ukraine (which did need spending) and got nothing done to stop the flow of people across the southern border (which does need stopping).

Fact is, moderates in the party are just as unreasonable as MTG. Moderates are threatening to cross aisles if they don't get their way, too. Etc......

Why is it always the responsibility of the Republicans to compromise? Democrats were willing to let Ukraine go down in defeat to protect their border policy. Why are they not the problem here? (answer: because they know GOP moderates will bend to the urge to be the adult in the room.)

Until Democrats are filled with terror that the GOP actually is ready to say no, sit down under a shad tree, and start peeling peaches while the whole show burns to the ground, Democrats will continue to make maximalist demands and wait until Republicans cave.

---

Several issues here.

First, Johnson and through and through Conservative said point blank his view on supporting Ukraine and Israel changed when he saw the intel. You of everyone on this Board should respect that answer. You know he is not at liberty to share, but if a guy with his pedigree is saying there are things you don't know, and we need to fund this. It should carry weight,
actually, his statement about "seeing the intel" concerned the FISA court. He shoulda said "fine, let the FISA court collapse. We'll write better law on a new one next week." And then be prepared to in fact let it collapse and start writing law on a replacement. Until Democrats understand that we are prepared do do exactly that, they will keep winning.

Second. that ship has sailed. The GOP is dysfunctional. You have to ask why? You say moderates are willing to leave, why? The Dem Moderates are ok with the most radical positions of the Squad.
Read what you wrote there. Dem Moderates go along with ALL of the radical positions of the Squad....they NEVER publicly criticize them. Where are all the stories about the Dem moderates saving the party from the Squad, undermining the far left to work with Republicans? Blue Dogs, Blue Dogs, wherefore art thou, Blue Dogs?

What is the GOP extreme asking that is so unpalatable that they are willing to cross.
Like what. GIve us an example of an extreme position that Gaetz and MTG are demanding? I disagree with them on Ukraine funding. Very unwise positions they have taken. But is it really "extreme" to demand fiscal restraint? Is it really extreme to suggest the problem on the border is worse? I mean, where, EXACTLY is the extreme position analogous to the ideological nonsense of the Squad?

Calling them names and yelling at them is not gonna get it done.
Equating MTG with the squad and calling her a radical is not gonna get it done, either, when all she's doing is standing up for things that are broadly popular, if not majoritarian positions within the party.

MAGA needs to take a look in the mirror if life long GOPers are willing to retire and cross than support what they want. But, seems you prefer to call them names. Gaetz and Greene hurt the Party.
And the moderates who create them don't?

---

Never fight with your base, man. Never. It is a bullet train to the hurt locker.

---

MTG is the Republican base?

---

Her views are a far larger slice of the primary electorate than yours are.

Are you going to demonize all of them, or work with them?

---

I'm an Independent
Will you work with me. DJT said he didn't want or need folks who supported other Republicans. I believe him

---

Well, let's see....independents certainly do not have a governing majority, and there aren't any moderates in the Democrat Party. Very monolithic majorities there in favor of open borders, modern monetary theory, green new deal, etc.... Of course, you can join with a quarter or so of the GOP who doesn't like Trump, but that doesn't get you anywhere near a governing majority either. Now, moderates are practical, if we are to believe what we are told, so exactly how do they change direction in Washington while refusing to work with the GOP?

There's an old quote attributed to various people but most often Sam Rayburn which goes "any jackass can kick a barn down; but it takes a carpenter to build one."

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?

---

Is that a bad thing, being a Moderate? Why? When did a Reagan, Eisenhower and Nixon (politically) view become moderate and bad?

---

When it started promoting globalist bs, high taxes, massive growth of government, unlimited immigration and economic destruction.

---

Reagan was a Globalist...

Reagan signed amnesty....

---

1. No he was not, at least not in the way we understand the term.

He was very America first.

2. His immigration policy has to be kept in context. The USA had not had the vast 40+ years of legal and illegal immigration that we have had now. The act had broad Congressional approval and it regulated the residency position of only about 2 million people. And it put serious requirements on them...work history, no criminal offenses, only a one year window to apply, etc.

It very very unlikely that he would support a general massive amnesty for 10-25 million illegals like what is being floated in DC right now.

[President Ronald Reagan signed it into law in November 1986. This act introduced civil and criminal penalties to employers who knowingly hired undocumented immigrants or individuals unauthorized to work in the U.S. However, the act also offered legalization, which led to lawful permanent residence (LPR) and prospective naturalization to undocumented migrants, who entered the country prior to 1982. Farm workers who could validate at least ninety days of employment also qualified for lawful permanent residency.

U.S. law required qualified applicants, who had continuously resided in the U.S. since 1982, to apply within a one-year window, from May 1987 to May 1988, pay a fee, and provide extensive documentation, which included fingerprints, employment history, proof of continuous residency, and other documents. After 1986, U.S. law required hired employees to demonstrate work eligibility by filling out an I-9 form and submitting certifications of citizenship or work authorization. Applicants also had to complete interviews and medical examinations. Employers who failed to document 1-9 forms upon inspection were charged with warnings, fines, or criminal proceedings. The General Accounting Office (GAO) was also established to investigate employer discrimination against authorized immigrant workers.

https://guides.loc.gov/latinx-civil-rights/irca]

FLBear5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

“This is the uniparty for the American people watching,” Greene says amid boos from both sides of the aisle. https://t.co/Jk28xqpVjU

— The Recount (@therecount) May 8, 2024

---

She is a real problem, she is even going against Trump now.

---

she's speaking for a majority of the party w/r/t the Speaker.....

Why is it always the conservatives who are the problem for resisting leadership, but not moderates who do exactly the same thing?

---

Majority of the Party???? I don't know what Party you belong to. Johnson's Conservative credentials are better than Greene's! For someone that seems to pride himself on being an analyst, strategic thinker you support some very strange positions. You know better than most that Johnson, ANY GOP Speaker today, is limited in what they can do and get accomplished. Yet, you support whack job, shrill emotional outburst like yesterday that do nothing but create chaos and give more power to the Dems. Johnson knows getting Trump elected is Job #1, the rest is just trying to keep the Nation on the rails until the election.

By the way, she got slapped down by her own Party and the GOP Nominee. Look at the vote. Don't think she is in tuned with the Party.

Worse yet, she has NO concept of how to actually accomplish anything. Her and Gaetz just go off the rails run by pure emotion. Meanwhile, the Dems act as a block and everything is a concerted effort. They are setting Trump and the neo-GOP back decades...

That is my name for the current GOP - neo-GOP. Because it sure ain't Reagan and Goldwater's GOP.

---

Conservative credentials aside, he facilitated the advance of items important to the left and got nothing in return. He did it on military aid. He did it on FISA courts. What did "we" get in return? (nothing that I'm aware of.) She is expressing a view held by a majority of Republicans, who are frustrated that we spent all this money on Israel and Ukraine (which did need spending) and got nothing done to stop the flow of people across the southern border (which does need stopping).

Fact is, moderates in the party are just as unreasonable as MTG. Moderates are threatening to cross aisles if they don't get their way, too. Etc......

Why is it always the responsibility of the Republicans to compromise? Democrats were willing to let Ukraine go down in defeat to protect their border policy. Why are they not the problem here? (answer: because they know GOP moderates will bend to the urge to be the adult in the room.)

Until Democrats are filled with terror that the GOP actually is ready to say no, sit down under a shad tree, and start peeling peaches while the whole show burns to the ground, Democrats will continue to make maximalist demands and wait until Republicans cave.

---

Several issues here.

First, Johnson and through and through Conservative said point blank his view on supporting Ukraine and Israel changed when he saw the intel. You of everyone on this Board should respect that answer. You know he is not at liberty to share, but if a guy with his pedigree is saying there are things you don't know, and we need to fund this. It should carry weight,
actually, his statement about "seeing the intel" concerned the FISA court. He shoulda said "fine, let the FISA court collapse. We'll write better law on a new one next week." And then be prepared to in fact let it collapse and start writing law on a replacement. Until Democrats understand that we are prepared do do exactly that, they will keep winning.

Second. that ship has sailed. The GOP is dysfunctional. You have to ask why? You say moderates are willing to leave, why? The Dem Moderates are ok with the most radical positions of the Squad.
Read what you wrote there. Dem Moderates go along with ALL of the radical positions of the Squad....they NEVER publicly criticize them. Where are all the stories about the Dem moderates saving the party from the Squad, undermining the far left to work with Republicans? Blue Dogs, Blue Dogs, wherefore art thou, Blue Dogs?

What is the GOP extreme asking that is so unpalatable that they are willing to cross.
Like what. GIve us an example of an extreme position that Gaetz and MTG are demanding? I disagree with them on Ukraine funding. Very unwise positions they have taken. But is it really "extreme" to demand fiscal restraint? Is it really extreme to suggest the problem on the border is worse? I mean, where, EXACTLY is the extreme position analogous to the ideological nonsense of the Squad?

Calling them names and yelling at them is not gonna get it done.
Equating MTG with the squad and calling her a radical is not gonna get it done, either, when all she's doing is standing up for things that are broadly popular, if not majoritarian positions within the party.

MAGA needs to take a look in the mirror if life long GOPers are willing to retire and cross than support what they want. But, seems you prefer to call them names. Gaetz and Greene hurt the Party.
And the moderates who create them don't?

---

Never fight with your base, man. Never. It is a bullet train to the hurt locker.

---

MTG is the Republican base?

---

Her views are a far larger slice of the primary electorate than yours are.

Are you going to demonize all of them, or work with them?

---

I'm an Independent
Will you work with me. DJT said he didn't want or need folks who supported other Republicans. I believe him

---

Well, let's see....independents certainly do not have a governing majority, and there aren't any moderates in the Democrat Party. Very monolithic majorities there in favor of open borders, modern monetary theory, green new deal, etc.... Of course, you can join with a quarter or so of the GOP who doesn't like Trump, but that doesn't get you anywhere near a governing majority either. Now, moderates are practical, if we are to believe what we are told, so exactly how do they change direction in Washington while refusing to work with the GOP?

There's an old quote attributed to various people but most often Sam Rayburn which goes "any jackass can kick a barn down; but it takes a carpenter to build one."

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?

---

Is that a bad thing, being a Moderate? Why? When did a Reagan, Eisenhower and Nixon (politically) view become moderate and bad?

---

When it started promoting globalist bs, high taxes, massive growth of government, unlimited immigration and economic destruction.

---

All items that premier Liberals have promoted in the Past.

Reagan was a Globalist.
...

---

Also, “Reagan conservatives” should remember when then-governor Ronald Reagan said in response to such “protests” that “if it takes a bloodbath, let’s get it over with” - https://t.co/Git6jaDrBE https://t.co/5QG7PGZEvn

— James Kirkpatrick (@VDAREJamesK) May 13, 2024

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

“This is the uniparty for the American people watching,” Greene says amid boos from both sides of the aisle. https://t.co/Jk28xqpVjU

— The Recount (@therecount) May 8, 2024

---

She is a real problem, she is even going against Trump now.

---

she's speaking for a majority of the party w/r/t the Speaker.....

Why is it always the conservatives who are the problem for resisting leadership, but not moderates who do exactly the same thing?

---

Majority of the Party???? I don't know what Party you belong to. Johnson's Conservative credentials are better than Greene's! For someone that seems to pride himself on being an analyst, strategic thinker you support some very strange positions. You know better than most that Johnson, ANY GOP Speaker today, is limited in what they can do and get accomplished. Yet, you support whack job, shrill emotional outburst like yesterday that do nothing but create chaos and give more power to the Dems. Johnson knows getting Trump elected is Job #1, the rest is just trying to keep the Nation on the rails until the election.

By the way, she got slapped down by her own Party and the GOP Nominee. Look at the vote. Don't think she is in tuned with the Party.

Worse yet, she has NO concept of how to actually accomplish anything. Her and Gaetz just go off the rails run by pure emotion. Meanwhile, the Dems act as a block and everything is a concerted effort. They are setting Trump and the neo-GOP back decades...

That is my name for the current GOP - neo-GOP. Because it sure ain't Reagan and Goldwater's GOP.

---

Conservative credentials aside, he facilitated the advance of items important to the left and got nothing in return. He did it on military aid. He did it on FISA courts. What did "we" get in return? (nothing that I'm aware of.) She is expressing a view held by a majority of Republicans, who are frustrated that we spent all this money on Israel and Ukraine (which did need spending) and got nothing done to stop the flow of people across the southern border (which does need stopping).

Fact is, moderates in the party are just as unreasonable as MTG. Moderates are threatening to cross aisles if they don't get their way, too. Etc......

Why is it always the responsibility of the Republicans to compromise? Democrats were willing to let Ukraine go down in defeat to protect their border policy. Why are they not the problem here? (answer: because they know GOP moderates will bend to the urge to be the adult in the room.)

Until Democrats are filled with terror that the GOP actually is ready to say no, sit down under a shad tree, and start peeling peaches while the whole show burns to the ground, Democrats will continue to make maximalist demands and wait until Republicans cave.

---

Several issues here.

First, Johnson and through and through Conservative said point blank his view on supporting Ukraine and Israel changed when he saw the intel. You of everyone on this Board should respect that answer. You know he is not at liberty to share, but if a guy with his pedigree is saying there are things you don't know, and we need to fund this. It should carry weight,
actually, his statement about "seeing the intel" concerned the FISA court. He shoulda said "fine, let the FISA court collapse. We'll write better law on a new one next week." And then be prepared to in fact let it collapse and start writing law on a replacement. Until Democrats understand that we are prepared do do exactly that, they will keep winning.

Second. that ship has sailed. The GOP is dysfunctional. You have to ask why? You say moderates are willing to leave, why? The Dem Moderates are ok with the most radical positions of the Squad.
Read what you wrote there. Dem Moderates go along with ALL of the radical positions of the Squad....they NEVER publicly criticize them. Where are all the stories about the Dem moderates saving the party from the Squad, undermining the far left to work with Republicans? Blue Dogs, Blue Dogs, wherefore art thou, Blue Dogs?

What is the GOP extreme asking that is so unpalatable that they are willing to cross.
Like what. GIve us an example of an extreme position that Gaetz and MTG are demanding? I disagree with them on Ukraine funding. Very unwise positions they have taken. But is it really "extreme" to demand fiscal restraint? Is it really extreme to suggest the problem on the border is worse? I mean, where, EXACTLY is the extreme position analogous to the ideological nonsense of the Squad?

Calling them names and yelling at them is not gonna get it done.
Equating MTG with the squad and calling her a radical is not gonna get it done, either, when all she's doing is standing up for things that are broadly popular, if not majoritarian positions within the party.

MAGA needs to take a look in the mirror if life long GOPers are willing to retire and cross than support what they want. But, seems you prefer to call them names. Gaetz and Greene hurt the Party.
And the moderates who create them don't?

---

Never fight with your base, man. Never. It is a bullet train to the hurt locker.

---

MTG is the Republican base?

---

Her views are a far larger slice of the primary electorate than yours are.

Are you going to demonize all of them, or work with them?

---

I'm an Independent
Will you work with me. DJT said he didn't want or need folks who supported other Republicans. I believe him

---

Well, let's see....independents certainly do not have a governing majority, and there aren't any moderates in the Democrat Party. Very monolithic majorities there in favor of open borders, modern monetary theory, green new deal, etc.... Of course, you can join with a quarter or so of the GOP who doesn't like Trump, but that doesn't get you anywhere near a governing majority either. Now, moderates are practical, if we are to believe what we are told, so exactly how do they change direction in Washington while refusing to work with the GOP?

There's an old quote attributed to various people but most often Sam Rayburn which goes "any jackass can kick a barn down; but it takes a carpenter to build one."

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?

---

Is that a bad thing, being a Moderate? Why? When did a Reagan, Eisenhower and Nixon (politically) view become moderate and bad?

---

When it started promoting globalist bs, high taxes, massive growth of government, unlimited immigration and economic destruction.

---

Reagan was a Globalist...

Reagan signed amnesty....

---

1. No he was not, at least not in the way we understand the term.

He was very America first.

2. His immigration policy has to be kept in context. The USA had not had the vast 40+ years of legal and illegal immigration that we have had now. The act had broad Congressional approval and it regulated the residency position of only about 2 million people. And it put serious requirements on them...work history, no criminal offenses, only a one year window to apply, etc.

It very very unlikely that he would support a general massive amnesty for 10-25 million illegals like what is being floated in DC right now.

[President Ronald Reagan signed it into law in November 1986. This act introduced civil and criminal penalties to employers who knowingly hired undocumented immigrants or individuals unauthorized to work in the U.S. However, the act also offered legalization, which led to lawful permanent residence (LPR) and prospective naturalization to undocumented migrants, who entered the country prior to 1982. Farm workers who could validate at least ninety days of employment also qualified for lawful permanent residency.

U.S. law required qualified applicants, who had continuously resided in the U.S. since 1982, to apply within a one-year window, from May 1987 to May 1988, pay a fee, and provide extensive documentation, which included fingerprints, employment history, proof of continuous residency, and other documents. After 1986, U.S. law required hired employees to demonstrate work eligibility by filling out an I-9 form and submitting certHe suppoifications of citizenship or work authorization. Applicants also had to complete interviews and medical examinations. Employers who failed to document 1-9 forms upon inspection were charged with warnings, fines, or criminal proceedings. The General Accounting Office (GAO) was also established to investigate employer discrimination against authorized immigrant workers.

https://guides.loc.gov/latinx-civil-rights/irca]

---

I have no response. You people make up what you want to believe and discount facts. Reagan was not a globalist in today's definition! Geez, sad thing is you guys are serious.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

“This is the uniparty for the American people watching,” Greene says amid boos from both sides of the aisle. https://t.co/Jk28xqpVjU

— The Recount (@therecount) May 8, 2024

---

She is a real problem, she is even going against Trump now.

---

she's speaking for a majority of the party w/r/t the Speaker.....

Why is it always the conservatives who are the problem for resisting leadership, but not moderates who do exactly the same thing?

---

Majority of the Party???? I don't know what Party you belong to. Johnson's Conservative credentials are better than Greene's! For someone that seems to pride himself on being an analyst, strategic thinker you support some very strange positions. You know better than most that Johnson, ANY GOP Speaker today, is limited in what they can do and get accomplished. Yet, you support whack job, shrill emotional outburst like yesterday that do nothing but create chaos and give more power to the Dems. Johnson knows getting Trump elected is Job #1, the rest is just trying to keep the Nation on the rails until the election.

By the way, she got slapped down by her own Party and the GOP Nominee. Look at the vote. Don't think she is in tuned with the Party.

Worse yet, she has NO concept of how to actually accomplish anything. Her and Gaetz just go off the rails run by pure emotion. Meanwhile, the Dems act as a block and everything is a concerted effort. They are setting Trump and the neo-GOP back decades...

That is my name for the current GOP - neo-GOP. Because it sure ain't Reagan and Goldwater's GOP.

---

Conservative credentials aside, he facilitated the advance of items important to the left and got nothing in return. He did it on military aid. He did it on FISA courts. What did "we" get in return? (nothing that I'm aware of.) She is expressing a view held by a majority of Republicans, who are frustrated that we spent all this money on Israel and Ukraine (which did need spending) and got nothing done to stop the flow of people across the southern border (which does need stopping).

Fact is, moderates in the party are just as unreasonable as MTG. Moderates are threatening to cross aisles if they don't get their way, too. Etc......

Why is it always the responsibility of the Republicans to compromise? Democrats were willing to let Ukraine go down in defeat to protect their border policy. Why are they not the problem here? (answer: because they know GOP moderates will bend to the urge to be the adult in the room.)

Until Democrats are filled with terror that the GOP actually is ready to say no, sit down under a shad tree, and start peeling peaches while the whole show burns to the ground, Democrats will continue to make maximalist demands and wait until Republicans cave.

---

Several issues here.

First, Johnson and through and through Conservative said point blank his view on supporting Ukraine and Israel changed when he saw the intel. You of everyone on this Board should respect that answer. You know he is not at liberty to share, but if a guy with his pedigree is saying there are things you don't know, and we need to fund this. It should carry weight,
actually, his statement about "seeing the intel" concerned the FISA court. He shoulda said "fine, let the FISA court collapse. We'll write better law on a new one next week." And then be prepared to in fact let it collapse and start writing law on a replacement. Until Democrats understand that we are prepared do do exactly that, they will keep winning.

Second. that ship has sailed. The GOP is dysfunctional. You have to ask why? You say moderates are willing to leave, why? The Dem Moderates are ok with the most radical positions of the Squad.
Read what you wrote there. Dem Moderates go along with ALL of the radical positions of the Squad....they NEVER publicly criticize them. Where are all the stories about the Dem moderates saving the party from the Squad, undermining the far left to work with Republicans? Blue Dogs, Blue Dogs, wherefore art thou, Blue Dogs?

What is the GOP extreme asking that is so unpalatable that they are willing to cross.
Like what. GIve us an example of an extreme position that Gaetz and MTG are demanding? I disagree with them on Ukraine funding. Very unwise positions they have taken. But is it really "extreme" to demand fiscal restraint? Is it really extreme to suggest the problem on the border is worse? I mean, where, EXACTLY is the extreme position analogous to the ideological nonsense of the Squad?

Calling them names and yelling at them is not gonna get it done.
Equating MTG with the squad and calling her a radical is not gonna get it done, either, when all she's doing is standing up for things that are broadly popular, if not majoritarian positions within the party.

MAGA needs to take a look in the mirror if life long GOPers are willing to retire and cross than support what they want. But, seems you prefer to call them names. Gaetz and Greene hurt the Party.
And the moderates who create them don't?

---

Never fight with your base, man. Never. It is a bullet train to the hurt locker.

---

MTG is the Republican base?

---

Her views are a far larger slice of the primary electorate than yours are.

Are you going to demonize all of them, or work with them?

---

I'm an Independent
Will you work with me. DJT said he didn't want or need folks who supported other Republicans. I believe him

---

Well, let's see....independents certainly do not have a governing majority, and there aren't any moderates in the Democrat Party. Very monolithic majorities there in favor of open borders, modern monetary theory, green new deal, etc.... Of course, you can join with a quarter or so of the GOP who doesn't like Trump, but that doesn't get you anywhere near a governing majority either. Now, moderates are practical, if we are to believe what we are told, so exactly how do they change direction in Washington while refusing to work with the GOP?

There's an old quote attributed to various people but most often Sam Rayburn which goes "any jackass can kick a barn down; but it takes a carpenter to build one."

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?

---

Is that a bad thing, being a Moderate? Why? When did a Reagan, Eisenhower and Nixon (politically) view become moderate and bad?

---

When it started promoting globalist bs, high taxes, massive growth of government, unlimited immigration and economic destruction.

---

Reagan was a Globalist...

Reagan signed amnesty....

---

1. No he was not, at least not in the way we understand the term.

He was very America first.

2. His immigration policy has to be kept in context. The USA had not had the vast 40+ years of legal and illegal immigration that we have had now. The act had broad Congressional approval and it regulated the residency position of only about 2 million people. And it put serious requirements on them...work history, no criminal offenses, only a one year window to apply, etc.

It very very unlikely that he would support a general massive amnesty for 10-25 million illegals like what is being floated in DC right now.

[President Ronald Reagan signed it into law in November 1986. This act introduced civil and criminal penalties to employers who knowingly hired undocumented immigrants or individuals unauthorized to work in the U.S. However, the act also offered legalization, which led to lawful permanent residence (LPR) and prospective naturalization to undocumented migrants, who entered the country prior to 1982. Farm workers who could validate at least ninety days of employment also qualified for lawful permanent residency.

U.S. law required qualified applicants, who had continuously resided in the U.S. since 1982, to apply within a one-year window, from May 1987 to May 1988, pay a fee, and provide extensive documentation, which included fingerprints, employment history, proof of continuous residency, and other documents. After 1986, U.S. law required hired employees to demonstrate work eligibility by filling out an I-9 form and submitting certHe suppoifications of citizenship or work authorization. Applicants also had to complete interviews and medical examinations. Employers who failed to document 1-9 forms upon inspection were charged with warnings, fines, or criminal proceedings. The General Accounting Office (GAO) was also established to investigate employer discrimination against authorized immigrant workers.

https://guides.loc.gov/latinx-civil-rights/irca]

---

I have no response. You people make up what you want to believe and discount facts. Reagan was not a globalist in today's definition! Geez, sad thing is you guys are serious.

---

I agree, simply put Reagan would just have never defined himself as a "globalist".

That is just not something he would have done.

[Meaning of globalist in English:
someone who believes that economic and foreign policy should be planned in an international way, rather than according to what is best for one particular country : He is a globalist, whereas we are nationalists who will put our country first.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/globalist#]

He also most likely, given mass immigration today, would not be for amnesty.

You act like Reagan if he came back would not take account of things in America as they are on the ground

You act like the GOP non-MAGA positions are Dem sellouts. That is not true.

Reagan saw Globalism tied with free enterprise. He saw immigration as America open to who wants and can get here. Those are his words. He set the pre-cursors of the WzTO and NAFTA.

Not MAGA...

FLBear5630 said:

---

You act like the GOP non-MAGA positions are Dem sellouts. That is not true.

Reagan saw Globalism tied with free enterprise. He saw immigration as America open to who wants and can get here. Those are his words. He set the pre-cursors of the WzTO and NAFTA.

Not MAGA...

---

Not all non-MAGA Republicans are sell outs.

But certainly you can admit that some are?

And again, Reagan was just not a globalist as we define the term. He always put the interests of Americans first...
especially middle class-middle Americans

Another reason I very much doubt he would want to give amnesty to 20-30 million 3rd worlders today. (It was 2 million in his time with work-criminal history checks)

He was also very combative with social-cultural Leftism.

He sent in the troops to clear out the leftist scum on the California campuses

Not very "moderate" of him was it?