Jump to content

Will Kevin McCarthy Be The Speaker Of The House? Or Mitch Senate Majority Leader?

Tiberius

By Tiberius
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

 Share

Recommended Posts

muppy Hall of Famer

muppy

Posted
Posted
52 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

 

You two lovebirds should get married. 😎  
 

Rockefeller would be 174 years old if he were alive today.  
 

The r party has changed since the studebaker was all the rage, and the d party has as well.  
 

I’m a conservative with socially liberal tendencies who recognizes the abject stupidity of both parties at times.   What appealed to me about Trump was his America first agenda.  I don’t see that as really all that different than the “Buy American” movement of the 1970s by union democrats.  I also tend to believe if you have your own house in order, it’s much easier to help others. 
 

 

senor leo is my sensi' of political thought.  Smart guy, Majorly nice, and NO I WONT MARRY YOU or senor redtail either tyvm

 

😏

 

lol 

  • Haha (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 546
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

B-Man
B-Man

.

B-Man
B-Man

😂    

Ralonzo
Ralonzo

Posted Images

The Frankish Reich All Pro

The Frankish Reich

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I’m a conservative with socially liberal tendencies who recognizes the abject stupidity of both parties at times.   What appealed to me about Trump was his America first agenda.  I don’t see that as really all that different than the “Buy American” movement of the 1970s by union democrats.

This is true. “America First” — what did it really mean?

- Protectionism: starting with Bill Clinton, both parties were strongly free trade. Starting with the Bernie/Trump rise in 2016, both parties moved sharply back to the old protectionist/high tariff side. Add in the return of old fashioned (I’d say “failed”) industrial policy, and that’s “America First”-ism.  It goes back to Truman at least; back to the 1st half of the 19th century mercantilism at most. Bernie provided a pro-union flavor of protectionism; Trump’s new spin was anti-unionism combined with protection from competition for old industries. You won’t find many economists other than Peter Navarro who think either flavor is a good idea. 
- Foreign policy: again, an idiosyncratic Trump blend. Kissingerian “real politik” (a focus on what alignments work best for America rather than the emphasis on democratization that flowed from Jimmy Carter to Bush 43), but without the broad conflict of ideology thinking that informed Cold War policy. It was almost more Monroe Doctrine than anything 20th Century: Russia, your natural domain is Eastern Europe to the Pacific; we’ll leave you alone as long as you don’t meddle in our half of the globe. As such it was a rejection of Republican strategy from Eisenhower through Mitt. 
- Immigration: it started out with a rational idea — the USA, unlike most developed countries, doesn’t so much pick and choose its immigrants as those immigrants pick and choose us. So maybe we move to more of the Canada/NZ points-based model for legal immigration, trying to attract high-value workers and deter low-value arrivals. But it dissolved into a general “immigration bad” narrative, whether legal or illegal, as Trump cozied up to the so-called white nationalist wing. There was a pro-USA compromise to be had early on (Trump’s pro-DACA sentiments had people dreaming), but the Muslim ban so poisoned the well that no bipartisan compromise could ever emerge. 
- Cultural issues. A very selfish conspicuous consumer who extolled a

return to traditional moral values; a kind of “serial marriage and fatherhood and secularism is fine for people like me,

but an unmitigated disaster for all those people like you.” I don’t deny the importance of government in leading on moral/social issues, but this is one area in which the messenger really needs to live it in order for the message to have an impact. 
- Fiscal policy. A total repudiation of the budget balancing obsession that was a Republican mantra since the time of Reagan. Cut taxes, keep spending,

forget all about social security and Medicare reform since those are not popular with the electorate. 
 

It’s a mishmash of social, economic, and national security theories that may not even deserve the title of “theory.” America First had appeal as a slogan, but this incoherent mess is best described with a different neologism: Trumpism. 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
muppy Hall of Famer

muppy

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

no disrespect meant.  I was trying to be funny. I guess polygamy isn't all that funny

 

DUH on me  I didnt get it....I should have lol OY VEY

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leh-nerd skin-erd All Pro

leh-nerd skin-erd

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

This is true. “America First” — what did it really mean?

- Protectionism: starting with Bill Clinton, both parties were strongly free trade. Starting with the Bernie/Trump rise in 2016, both parties moved sharply back to the old protectionist/high tariff side. Add in the return of old fashioned (I’d say “failed”) industrial policy, and that’s “America First”-ism.  It goes back to Truman at least; back to the 1st half of the 19th century mercantilism at most. Bernie provided a pro-union flavor of protectionism; Trump’s new spin was anti-unionism combined with protection from competition for old industries. You won’t find many economists other than Peter Navarro who think either flavor is a good idea. 
- Foreign policy: again, an idiosyncratic Trump blend. Kissingerian “real politik” (a focus on what alignments work best for America rather than the emphasis on democratization that flowed from Jimmy Carter to Bush 43), but without the broad conflict of ideology thinking that informed Cold War policy. It was almost more Monroe Doctrine than anything 20th Century: Russia, your natural domain is Eastern Europe to the Pacific; we’ll leave you alone as long as you don’t meddle in our half of the globe. As such it was a rejection of Republican strategy from Eisenhower through Mitt. 
- Immigration: it started out with a rational idea — the USA, unlike most developed countries, doesn’t so much pick and choose its immigrants as those immigrants pick and choose us. So maybe we move to more of the Canada/NZ points-based model for legal immigration, trying to attract high-value workers and deter low-value arrivals. But it dissolved into a general “immigration bad” narrative, whether legal or illegal, as Trump cozied up to the so-called white nationalist wing. There was a pro-USA compromise to be had early on (Trump’s pro-DACA sentiments had people dreaming), but the Muslim ban so poisoned the well that no bipartisan compromise could ever emerge. 
- Cultural issues. A very selfish conspicuous consumer who extolled a

return to traditional moral values; a kind of “serial marriage and fatherhood and secularism is fine for people like me,

but an unmitigated disaster for all those people like you.” I don’t deny the importance of government in leading on moral/social issues, but this is one area in which the messenger really needs to live it in order for the message to have an impact. 
- Fiscal policy. A total repudiation of the budget balancing obsession that was a Republican mantra since the time of Reagan. Cut taxes, keep spending,

forget all about social security and Medicare reform since those are not popular with the electorate. 
 

It’s a mishmash of social, economic, and national security theories that may not even deserve the title of “theory.” America First had appeal as a slogan, but this incoherent mess is best described with a different neologism: Trumpism. 

I’ll revisit this later, Frankish, thanks for putting the work in. 

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
muppy Hall of Famer

muppy

Posted
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I think @muppy is unaware that Utah is considered the San Diego of the land of the Latter Day Saints. 
 

 

it flew right over my head chirp chirp chirp chirp lol

 

carry on 🙂

Edited by muppy
  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChiGoose Veteran

ChiGoose

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

We're not anywhere near utter chaos

 

A good leader would have wrapped this up in caucus prior to the first day of the new congress. Or else, have had a plan to actually gain votes during the balloting.

 

McCarthy is weak and is publicly demonstrating that weakness to everyone.

 

This is the first time in 100 years that we've needed multiple ballots because most Speakers tend to be able to lead. McCarthy is a follower.

 

It's not utter chaos yet, but it's certainly not some testament to anything other than McCarthy's weakness.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doc Hall of Famer

Doc

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

maybe not but the R's are losing the little piece of the middle that they still have.  Not sure who gridlock is appealing to except nihilists and anarchists.

 

LOL!  Good one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pokebball Veteran

Pokebball

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

 

A good leader would have wrapped this up in caucus prior to the first day of the new congress. Or else, have had a plan to actually gain votes during the balloting.

 

McCarthy is weak and is publicly demonstrating that weakness to everyone.

 

This is the first time in 100 years that we've needed multiple ballots because most Speakers tend to be able to lead. McCarthy is a follower.

 

It's not utter chaos yet, but it's certainly not some testament to anything other than McCarthy's weakness.

Don't mistake my opinion of not being anywhere near utter chaos to mean I'm offering any sort of testament to McCarthy's leadership skill.

 

So very much is happening these past few, and perhaps these next few, days. I like

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dpberr Veteran

dpberr

Posted
Posted

McCarthy is Mr. Uniparty. Just like McConnell.  The uniparty won't take no for an answer.

 

6 tries or 60.  McCarthy will be speaker.  Just wait and see.  Most people would get the hint after six tries, but McCarthy won't. 

 

Uniparty doesn't care one iota about Hunter Biden investigations, abortion or any of the "woke" noise. That's stuff for the consumption of the "average" American.

 

Just don't touch the budget and don't ask about things the they are involved in like the border (great source of very cheap labor), GOF research (that the US government and wealthy universities continue to finance), feds spying on Americans.   

  • Disagree 1
  • Dislike 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leh-nerd skin-erd All Pro

leh-nerd skin-erd

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, nedboy7 said:

The budget rose by a record 7.8 trillion dollars to 28 trillion under Trump. 

I don't remember you all melting down over this. 

So spare me the two thieves BS. 

That’s a standard default argument—reigning in the budget, kicking the can down the road, it’s on our kids and grandkids.  Truth is, not enough people care, and there are very, very few politicians in Washington who give it much thought.  Rand Paul, maybe, and people were thrilled when his neighbor tried to take him out. 
 

That said, Trump was in office for 4 years, Biden has been in office 45+.  There is no comparison between the two and their impact on the national economy.  

  • Eyeroll 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tiberius Hall of Famer

Tiberius

Posted
  • Author
Posted
23 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

That’s a standard default argument—reigning in the budget, kicking the can down the road, it’s on our kids and grandkids.  Truth is, not enough people care, and there are very, very few politicians in Washington who give it much thought.  Rand Paul, maybe, and people were thrilled when his neighbor tried to take him out. 
 

That said, Trump was in office for 4 years, Biden has been in office 45+.  There is no comparison between the two and their impact on the national economy.  

When have been in debt almost continuously since the founding of the republic. So what? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tiberius Hall of Famer

Tiberius

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 minute ago, Reverse Meathead said:

I don't get Trump.  First he takes a piss on Mich McConnel's leg, then he backs Kevin McCarthy who represents Washington more than he does the Republicans.

 Trump wants the House organized so it can run flak for him as his legal troubles ramp up 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...