Right wing nuts thread (1 Viewer)

[DaveXA]

Wasn't sure where to put this, but we need a thread for the wing nuts. Lauren Boebert.

 

[MT15]

Alabama doesn’t deserve this, nobody does.

 

[coldseat]

Alabama doesn’t deserve this, nobody does.

I think Republicans turn the states they control into shirt on purpose. The know that angry/malcontent voters make good Republican voters because they're always looking for a scapegoat to blame. And Republicans are always offering up a scapegoat to shift blame for their own horribleness.

 

[Optimus Prime]

I think Republicans turn the states they control into shirt on purpose. The know that angry/malcontent voters make good Republican voters because they're always looking for a scapegoat to blame. And Republicans are always offering up a scapegoat to shift blame for their own horribleness.

I've always wondered why in states that votes overwhelmingly red for every position from dog catcher to governor for decades, during a period when the GOP has the White House, House and Senate yet somehow the GOP's "this isn't our fault" still works

 

[TampaJoe]

I've always wondered why in states that votes overwhelmingly red for every position from dog catcher to governor, during a period when the GOP has the White House, House and Senate yet somehow the GOP's "this isn't our fault" still works

When was the last time that one party completely controlled all the WH, House and Senate? The closest I recall in recent history was Obama’s first term when Dems controlled both the executive and the House and had close to a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. Even then they still didn’t have complete control.

Government is like a dysfunctional family where there are always two to three sides in every argument. It is, as they say, “sausage making”.

 

[Optimus Prime]

When was the last time that one party completely controlled all the WH, House and Senate?

The last time would be right now

 

[coldseat]

When was the last time that one party completely controlled all the WH, House and Senate? The closest I recall in recent history was Obama’s first term when Dems controlled both the executive and the House and had close to a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. Even then they still didn’t have complete control.

Government is like a dysfunctional family where there are always two to three sides in every argument. It is, as they say, “sausage making”.

Republicans have had it in many states for years and that hasn't made anything in those states better at all. Especially since Trump's rise and the concurrent radicalization of the Republican base and party.

 

[SFIDC3]

The last time would be right now

Wow, it's almost as if you are calling out his incredible "both sidesing" of everything when someone points out the reality of a Republican failure.....

 

[TampaJoe]

The last time would be right now

Not really. The Senate still operates under the filibuster rules so the GOP has more power but not complete control. Obama was the last POTUS I recall that came close to controlling 60 votes in the Senate and even then he didn’t get everything he wanted.

 

[TampaJoe]

Republicans have had it in many states for years and that hasn't made anything in those states better at all. Especially since Trump's rise and the concurrent radicalization of the Republican base and party.

I was speaking to the US Government. There are states where one party or the other have practical control of everything.

The Federal Government has some “guardrails” to protect the rights of the minority party. The filibuster in the Senate is one of those guardrails. Both parties hate it and both parties love it depending on who holds the majority.

Personally I think it is a good thing.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Not really. The Senate still operates under the filibuster rules so the GOP has more power but not complete control. Obama was the last POTUS I recall that came close to controlling 60 votes in the Senate and even then he didn’t get everything he wanted.

So having a Republican President and Republican majority in the House and Senate doesn't count now has having control?

Must have a filibuster and veto proof majority?

and on top of that must pass everything they and the President wants with zero negotiation and compromise? Then and only then will you admit to one side 'having control'?

That's not even 'both sides' I'm not even sure what you would call that

 

[TampaJoe]

So having a Republican President and Republican majority in the House and Senate doesn't count now has having control?

Must have a filibuster and veto proof majority?

and on top of that must pass everything they and the President wants with zero negotiation and compromise? Then and only then will you admit to one side 'having control'?

That's not even 'both sides' I'm not even sure what you would call that

Just pointing out the obvious. In order to control the Senate in many things, you need 60 votes.

Do you disagree?

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Obama was the last POTUS I recall that came close to controlling 60 votes in the Senate and even then he didn’t get everything he wanted.

Well, his job was to work for The People, not himself. Think about it!

 

[TampaJoe]

Well, his job was to work for The People, not himself. Think about it!

I wasn’t questioning his motivations. No need to get yourself all worked up over it.

 

[TampaJoe]

So having a Republican President and Republican majority in the House and Senate doesn't count now has having control?

Must have a filibuster and veto proof majority?

and on top of that must pass everything they and the President wants with zero negotiation and compromise? Then and only then will you admit to one side 'having control'?

That's not even 'both sides' I'm not even sure what you would call that

I would call it a figment of your imagination. The majority of which I never said.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

I wasn’t questioning his motivations. No need to get yourself all worked up over it.

I know you weren't, you believe a POTUS is supposed to get his way and you believe that those that try to introduce a different way of serving The People are being obstructionist.

 

[TampaJoe]

I know you weren't, you believe a POTUS is supposed to get his way and you believe that those that try to introduce a different way of serving The People are being obstructionist.

Not really. I don’t think I ever said that. Our government isn’t engineered to work that way. It is engineered for compromise.

You should stick to posting what YOU think rather than misrepresenting what other people think. You aren’t very good at it.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Not really. I don’t think I ever said that.

You are the one going on about how Government is gridlocked and how U.S. Presidents are incapable of getting everything THEY wanted! I just wanted you to think about that comment.

Our government isn’t engineered to work that way. It is engineered for compromise.

Mission Accomplished!

 

[TampaJoe]

You are the one going on about how Government is gridlocked and how U.S. Presidents are incapable of getting everything THEY wanted! I just wanted you to think about that comment.

Mission Accomplished!

I did think about it both before and after I posted the comment. Are you somehow implying that Obama somehow didn’t “want” his policy proposals to pass? POTUS last I checked is a full time professional executive position under the Constitution. I assume that whatever proposals he puts forward he is doing so as part of his JOB as President. I also assumed, incorrectly, that you as an intelligent person wouldn’t need to have that explained to you.

Think about that.