Mike Johnson

[AUDub 11,153]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

I think the only thing they have to give is not voting to oust him.

If the lunatic Rs melt it down again I’m ok with the Ds reiterating their “Jeffries or bust” position again.  

Edited April 22 by AUDub

[auburnatl1 4,966]

4 minutes ago, AUDub said:

The Pelosi quote you whipped out is the laziest sort of equivocation. 

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/03/09/pelosi-pass-health-reform-so-you-can-find-out-whats-in-it

[AUDub 11,153]

4 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/03/09/pelosi-pass-health-reform-so-you-can-find-out-whats-in-it

Yep. Lazy. And now you’re revealing yourself to be stupid. 

[AUDub 11,153]

So centrist he’s gonna whip out a daily caller columnist as a rebuttal lol. 

[RunInRed 16,431]

When you lose the NY Post …

[aubiefifty 16,811]

26 minutes ago, RunInRed said:

When you lose the NY Post …

I hope they do not tell YOU to FAFO...............

[auburnatl1 4,966]

1 hour ago, RunInRed said:

When you lose the NY Post …

https://www.newsweek.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-russia-state-tv-margarita-simonyan-1892691

[auburnatl1 4,966]

10 hours ago, AUDub said:

Yep. Lazy. And now you’re revealing yourself to be stupid. 

You already called me dumb earlier, is stupid to you like really really dumb? If you’re struggling and lacking the vocabulary to do effective insulting, this link could help. Practice using them every day and then steadily add more words. Im here to help with your journey.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/top-10-sophisticated-insults

[TexasTiger 12,952]

16 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

Regardless the public optics were majority party bully ball, with little to no gop involvement.  It contributed to the no compromise, scorch and burn politics of today. And indirectly, further set the table for the rise of maga.

This is disingenuous, or more likely, misinformed. This was the Republican spin and Republicans are much better at creating narratives and endless repetition. If you really care to dig into the history of this legislation, Obama desperately wanted a bipartisan bill. Republicans had months of input and acted like they were always getting closer to supporting it when in fact they were just delaying and spreading disinformation about “death panels,” etc. It was a market based bill to try and garner Republican support. If Dems had known from the outset no Republican was ever going to support it and just try to derail it with deceptive BS, they’d have gone much further.

I know it’s hard as a long-time Republican to accept what your party has become, but it’s definitely disingenuous to keep blaming Democrats for its devolution. The roots of MAGA have long been in the Republican DNA. John Birch, Goldwater, Nixon’s Southern Strategy, Lee Atwater, and courting of Thurmond & the Wallace voters.
 

Republicans knew if Obama successfully had the bipartisan approach he favored, they were set to wander in the wilderness. The night of his inauguration, a key group of Republicans met to plan gridlock as a strategy to regain power. MAGA is the Frankenstein’s monster they ended up creating.

[auburnatl1 4,966]

33 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

This is disingenuous, or more likely, misinformed. This was the Republican spin and Republicans are much better at creating narratives and endless repetition. If you really care to dig into the history of this legislation, Obama desperately wanted a bipartisan bill. Republicans had months of input and acted like they were always getting closer to supporting it when in fact they were just delaying and spreading disinformation about “death panels,” etc. It was a market based bill to try and garner Republican support. If Dems had known from the outset no Republican was ever going to support it and just try to derail it with deceptive BS, they’d have gone much further.

I know it’s hard as a long-time Republican to accept what your party has become, but it’s definitely disingenuous to keep blaming Democrats for its devolution. The roots of MAGA have long been in the Republican DNA. John Birch, Goldwater, Nixon’s Southern Strategy, Lee Atwater, and courting of Thurmond & the Wallace voters.
 

Republicans knew if Obama successfully had the bipartisan approach he favored, they were set to wander in the wilderness. The night of his inauguration, a key group of Republicans met to plan gridlock as a strategy to regain power. MAGA is the Frankenstein’s monster they ended up creating.

There are several interpretations of that time. We have different ones. To continue this would be 25 posts of opposing links from 14 years ago. So in the interest of time I’ll move on.

Btw It is interesting how when I criticize maga - happy land and 8 thumbs up. But when I criticize the libs, on anything - pitchforks. Its odd that I’m deeply informed about the right but clueless/disingenuous about the left. What are the odds?

[TexasTiger 12,952]

3 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Btw It is interesting how when I criticize maga - happy land and 8 thumbs up. But when I criticize the libs, on anything - pitchforks. Its odd that I’m deeply informed about the right but clueless/disingenuous about the left. What are the odds?

You’re prone to gross oversimplification. That’s evident here, too. We’ve actually agreed on some criticisms of “the libs.” My biggest critique here was your continuing theme that Democrats played a key role in creating MAGA. I don’t recall much evidence of you seeing how far back it’s roots go.

[auburnatl1 4,966]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

You’re prone to gross oversimplification. That’s evident here, too. We’ve actually agreed on some criticisms of “the libs.” My biggest critique here was your continuing theme that Democrats played a key role in creating MAGA. I don’t recall much evidence of you seeing how far back its roots go.

In any ecosystem things evolve.  Sometimes it’s  purely spontaneous but usually it’s also as result of reacting to external conditions. IMO maga’s evolution was driven by 3 major factors: 1) a developing lack of faith and trust in institutions (gov, education, corporations).  Perception that individualism was losing out to greater good, big brother constructs with total societal  focus 2) extremist social initiatives - too much, too fast. Fixation on all minority issues and no interest in concerns of traditionalists 3) Trump. 

The right owns accountability for maga.  No argument. But I don’t think it was purely spontaneous. It was also a reaction. 

 

 

[TexasTiger 12,952]

2 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

In any ecosystem things evolve.  Sometimes it’s  purely spontaneous but usually it’s also as result of reacting to external conditions. IMO maga’s evolution was driven by 3 major factors: 1) a developing lack of faith and trust in institutions (gov, education, corporations).  Perception that individualism was losing out to greater good, big brother constructs with total societal  focus 2) extremist social initiatives - too much, too fast. Fixation on all minority issues and no interest in concerns of traditionalists 3) Trump. 

The right owns accountability for maga.  No argument. But I don’t think it was purely spontaneous. It was also a reaction. 

 

 

There are rational reactions to perceived stimuli and over-the-top irrational reactions. You’re apparently bothered by those things, but didn’t go MAGA— why not?

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

This is disingenuous, or more likely, misinformed. This was the Republican spin and Republicans are much better at creating narratives and endless repetition. If you really care to dig into the history of this legislation, Obama desperately wanted a bipartisan bill. Republicans had months of input and acted like they were always getting closer to supporting it when in fact they were just delaying and spreading disinformation about “death panels,” etc. It was a market based bill to try and garner Republican support. If Dems had known from the outset no Republican was ever going to support it and just try to derail it with deceptive BS, they’d have gone much further.

I know it’s hard as a long-time Republican to accept what your party has become, but it’s definitely disingenuous to keep blaming Democrats for its devolution. The roots of MAGA have long been in the Republican DNA. John Birch, Goldwater, Nixon’s Southern Strategy, Lee Atwater, and courting of Thurmond & the Wallace voters.
 

Republicans knew if Obama successfully had the bipartisan approach he favored, they were set to wander in the wilderness. The night of his inauguration, a key group of Republicans met to plan gridlock as a strategy to regain power. MAGA is the Frankenstein’s monster they ended up creating.

Why disingenuous, Nat’l said the optics. He is claiming majority party bullying. You are right about the narrative. We were told that it was shoved down our throats and “ death panel” discussion was a soundbite from Hannity. 
 

Did hate the way it was handled. March to floor with Pelosi carrying a sledge hammer.

[TexasTiger 12,952]

50 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Did hate the way it was handled. March to floor with Pelosi carrying a sledge hammer.

Do you understand why Pelosi had to take it to the floor the way she did?

[auburnatl1 4,966]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

There are rational reactions to perceived stimuli and over-the-top irrational reactions. You’re apparently bothered by those things, but didn’t go MAGA— why not?

I’ll leave my lib frustration at this. Maga is an easy target to make fun of. It’s a base of mainly disenfranchised ex-dem blue color folks that sold their soul (via Trump) to the alt right wackos in order to additively form a collation that had enough voter mass and passion to win. And the alt right, like any virus,  has been mutating and changing the host/party ever since. It’s obviously today no longer the GOP, but even more so it’s  often not coherent.

IMO that’s basically what and how it happened. But not why. Which is mainly for sociologists and historians. But I do think libs who always saw European socialism (with smaller, more homogeneous nations) as the goal for the US, don’t understand much of this country’s culture. Or don’t care. They assume that the people that don’t agree just don’t understand what’s best for them (ie my Pelosi comment) and issues like border integrity a minor priority.

Until there’s a reaction -> maga unleashed.

The solution to me has always been less federal gov one size fits all and more states rights to allow for cultural localization.  Again, we’re the United States. But most libs want big gov structures that can’t allow for that. Homogeneous progressive programs, regulations. and laws. From Opp to San Fran.

Good luck with that.

 

Edited April 22 by auburnatl1

[TexasTiger 12,952]

41 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

The solution to me has always been less federal gov one size fits all and more states rights to allow for cultural localization.  Again, we’re the United States. But most libs want big gov structures that can’t allow for that.

Turns out most conservatives don’t want that either.

 

41 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

It’s a base of mainly disenfranchised ex-dem blue color folks

Got reliable data on that group compiling most of MAGA? I know there’s an element, but most I know were never Dems. Many were Reagan fans. Their parents may have been blue collar Dems. It seems if most were Dems, they wouldn’t be able to dominate Republican primaries like they do. Where did the Republicans go?

[auburnatl1 4,966]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

There are rational reactions to perceived stimuli and over-the-top irrational reactions. You’re apparently bothered by those things, but didn’t go MAGA— why not?

Same reason George Will isn’t.

[TexasTiger 12,952]

19 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Same reason George Will isn’t.

Kinda vague, but I’d say the less rational the voter the more easily manipulated they are to those seeking to emotionally manipulate voters based on stoking fear & anger. There’s nothing inherent in the things you fault Dems for that causes the MAGA response. If the “libs” are going too far out of the mainstream that opens the same lane for Republicans you fault the Dems for not taking, doesn’t it? And yet, they move off the road and barely have a tire even on the shoulder.

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

6 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Do you understand why Pelosi had to take it to the floor the way she did?

Wasn’t the clock ticking and she had to use a procedural thing? Still don’t understand the sledge hammer.

[TexasTiger 12,952]

1 hour ago, SaltyTiger said:

Wasn’t the clock ticking and she had to use a procedural thing? Still don’t understand the sledge hammer.

Not sure what you mean by “the sledge hammer,” but typically the House & Senate pass two variations of the same bill. Then they need to reconcile the differences. Since in recent years Republicans have filibustered every significant bill, the Democrats needed 60 votes in the Senate— they passed a bill with 60 votes representing the vast majority of Americans. The bill was known. The House Dems wanted to make more liberal changes and had the votes to do so, but they couldn’t change the Senate bill and get 60 votes for the changes because Ted Kennedy had died. So they voted on the Senate version as it was and passed it. All legit.

And in addition:

 Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who led the Republican response, concluded Republicans should not support the bill.^[165]

Republican senators, including those who had supported earlier proposals with a similar mandate, began to describe the mandate as "unconstitutional". Journalist Ezra Klein wrote in The New Yorker, "a policy that once enjoyed broad support within the Republican Party suddenly faced unified opposition."^[129]

[jj3jordan 2,056]

12 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

You already called me dumb earlier, is stupid to you like really really dumb? If you’re struggling and lacking the vocabulary to do effective insulting, this link could help. Practice using them every day and then steadily add more words. Im here to help with your journey.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/top-10-sophisticated-insults

I know you didn’t go to Auburn and publish a comma splice.

[auburnatl1 4,966]

12 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

I know you didn’t go to Auburn and publish a comma splice.

[AU9377 4,971]

I always respect someone that is capable of changing their mind when presented with information that does not support their position.  In this situation, that is compounded by the fact that his decision is against his short term self interests.  My problem with trusting Johnson is grounded in having listened to him being interviewed long before he was House Speaker, some even before he was a member of Congress.

As for Obamacare being a stimulus for nothing bi-partisan being accomplished, we have to remember that solutions had not been found after a couple of decades of kicking the can around.  Hillary Clinton, while First Lady, was tasked with developing a plan.  Big Pharma and the Insurance lobby used every ounce of influence they could muster and her plan never even got a House vote on the floor.  She later got health care for children passed, which is why Georgia has Peach Care and Alabama has Allkids.

Two terms of George W. saw nothing done, other than the health care industry and pharmaceutical industry get fat with un checked profits. Obama used all the political capital he had and still barely got a plan pushed thru.  He knew he had to do it in the first two years, due to the risk of losing the Senate at the midterm. 

Edited April 23 by AU9377

[jj3jordan 2,056]

1 hour ago, auburnatl1 said:

That is what my engrish comp professor told us.