Mike Johnson speaker of the house

[PozBearWI]

Indeed @viking8x6 focusing on where we agree has historically worked pretty well.  

[PozBearWI]

17 hours ago, ellentonboy said:

Once they reach a budget for the upcoming fiscal year, I hope some nut job like Matt Gaetz or Marjorie Taylor Green get pissed off and try to remove him because frankly, he is as about as dangerous as they come.  I don't think he will last to be honest but I know little about politics, or government for that matter.  That is sad because they either employed me or supported me my entire life, I'm not bragging here just being honest.   It's amazing to realize  that considering the amount of money they have deposited into my checking account over the years.......

Man I see the exposure given Mr. Johnson's history.  Things might get quite ugly making MTG and MG love him all the more.  If he isn't awful, stability in the role is more desirable. 

[BootmanLA]

4 hours ago, JimInWisc said:

Re: Parties, I am opposed to parties in general and both of them specifically.  Both parties hound me to join.  

I think that (in the U.S. at least, saying you're "opposed to parties" is like saying you're "opposed to air". Like it or not, our system was designed to support a party-based system, even in cases where offices are officially "non-partisan". For instance, the Nebraska legislature is elected without any partisan information showing on the ballot. But if you don't think people know which ones are sympathetic to the Republican party line and which ones are in line with the Democrats - their campaign rhetoric alone makes it patently clear - then you're hopelessly naive.

And despite constant bleating by political analysts that "independents" or "unaffiliated" voters are fast becoming the largest bloc of voters out there, that only refers to *registration*. The vast majority of those voters still vote steadily for one party or the other, election after election, and despite all these "independent" voters, virtually no one gets elected as a true independent to anything of significance.

It's true that for some local level offices, truly independent candidates run for and win those local offices - Hi, Jim! - but above the level of, say, county commissioner or whatever the local equivalent is, they just don't happen. Nor, for the most part, do third-party candidates.

[BootmanLA]

And for what it's worth: I'm all for trying to find common ground with the opposition, sometimes. SOMEtimes.

The Mike Johnsons of the world put on a facade of kindness and gentleness and pretend to love all people, even as they're willing to completely fuck you over. Johnson has specifically called for overturning Lawrence v. Texas (a position shared by Clarence Thomas AND Samuel Alito), which would have the effect of immediately criminalizing gay sex in a number of states that have specifically refused to repeal their unconstitutional sodomy laws. Just as the overturning of Roe v. Wade immediately reinstated a bunch of state abortion bans that had been on the books since the 1970's, overturning Lawrence would prompt a sea change in how gays and lesbians are treated under the law.

It's true that just a few years ago, a majority of the Court found that "discrimination on the basis of sex" included anti-gay discrimination, at least in terms of employment. But Justice Ginsburg was in that majority, and she's been replaced by Amy Coney Barrett. That means there's possibly four votes already (Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Barrett) to overturn what gay rights ARE recognized. And while Roberts has gone both ways on some of our cases, there's no doubt he would, if presented with a "fresh" question (as opposed to one where there's precedent to consider), strike down any protection we claimed.

More importantly, this crowd is getting good at eating away at the edges of decisions until the original is so full of holes it's meaningless. They've already basically given anyone who claims a religious belief against gays (or premarital sex, or birth control, or whatever) a free pass to do what they please regardless of what state law might require. And they've extended that to "closely held corporations" as though a legally fictitious person (which is what a corporation is) somehow has religious rights.

Thus far, for instance, public officials have been excused from accommodating same-sex marriages (whether in issuing licenses or performing ceremonies) because there's always been someone else in the office who could issue the license or perform the ceremony. What happens when some county clerk in Bumfuck, Alabama replaces all the staff with bible-thumping mouth-breathers, all of whom insist it's a violation of their religious freedom to be forced to sign off on a same-sex marriage license? The precedent is already set that individuals can't be forced to comply; what happens when there's no one else who WILL comply?

[BootmanLA]

And I will add this: I have issues with both parties, too. But my issues with the Democrats are minor, and in any event, the two parties are NOT THE SAME. Not even remotely, and any idiot who says they are probably shouldn't be allowed to wander the streets unsupervised.

Yes, both parties are dependent on big money. That's a function of a country with 330 million people, of whom 160 million, give or take 5 million, are registered voters. We have hundreds of media markets in which candidates must campaign. Like it or not, modern campaigning costs money. Those voters are also spread across four major time zones (plus smaller numbers in Alaskan and Hawaiian time zones), which further complicates outreach.

And at least in terms of presidential elections, every state has its own rules for qualifying a slate of electors to be on the general election ballot.

And that's just for the direct campaign expenditures; the real money is in third-party PAC spending, because generally speaking it's easier to hide who's giving, and there are fewer if any limits on donations from a single entity.

Still, it's worth noting that the 2020 elections - including the presidential/vice-presidential race, all 435 members of Congress, 35 Senate seats, 9 governor's races, and hundreds (if not thousands) of state legislative seats - cost roughly $14.4 billion dollars. Americans spend twice that, in a four-year period, just on potato chips.

In any event, though: compare the party platforms. Again, if you think the two parties support the same things, you're just not paying any attention AT ALL.

[hntnhole]

2 hours ago, JimInWisc said:

If he isn't awful, stability in the role is more desirable. 

From what I know of Johnson's writings, he's been awful in his viewpoints, in his votes as a State Rep, and there's not one scintilla of reason to think he's been enlightened by his recent ascent.  His tongue if firmly up O.J's ass, kissing vociferously - most likely en Francais.  He may look like an innocent choirboy with a nice smile, but his intellectual bent is nothing less than antihuman.  He thinks he knows it all because a Deity told him so, without regard to anyone else's viewpoints.  

"Stability" in a man like this - an "election-denier", a deplorable voting record on humanitarian issues, is indeed "stability" in the worst possible sense of the word.  He's nothing less than a ravening wolf in cute-little-boy guise.  

Edited October 30, 2023 by hntnhole
phrasing

[barefucker44]

I may be gay, but I aint stupid.  Mike Johnson will be a great speaker.  The Democrat party has done so much to screw Americans, we need to stand for strong Republicans who will back America and Israel.  As a Jewish gay man and a staunch supporter of Israel, I support conservatives who stand for Israel.

[hntnhole]

27 minutes ago, barefucker44 said:

I support conservatives who stand for Israel.

I think that sending two Carrier-groups to the coast off Israel was a fairly blunt statement of support - by a Democratic President.  Hopefully the Republicans will pass the financial aid bill promised to Israel by that same President out of the House too ..... 

[barefucker44]

7 minutes ago, hntnhole said:

I think that sending two Carrier-groups to the coast off Israel was a fairly blunt statement of support - by a Democratic President.  Hopefully the Republicans will pass the financial aid bill promised to Israel by that same President out of the House too ..... 

We shall see.

[Grschwanz]

mike johnson will cut your balls off and send you to a concentration camp barefucker.   did you fall asleep in history class when they taught about fascism?  you are gay and not even a christian. what part of white , christian extremism do you not understand?  

[PozBearWI]

15 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

I think that (in the U.S. at least, saying you're "opposed to parties" is like saying you're "opposed to air". Like it or not, our system was designed to support a party-based system, even in cases where offices are officially "non-partisan". For instance, the Nebraska legislature is elected without any partisan information showing on the ballot. But if you don't think people know which ones are sympathetic to the Republican party line and which ones are in line with the Democrats - their campaign rhetoric alone makes it patently clear - then you're hopelessly naive.

 

If you think our system of parties was "designed to support a party-based system" may I suggest you reread Washington's farewell address?

[PozBearWI]

11 hours ago, barefucker44 said:

We shall see.

We are seeing that now...  No "will" about it...

[BootmanLA]

4 hours ago, JimInWisc said:

If you think our system of parties was "designed to support a party-based system" may I suggest you reread Washington's farewell address?

I'm not referring to the constitutional underpinnings, which are only the most rudimentary of frameworks - obviously critical ones, but hardly the basis for our entire electoral system.

Washington didn't want parties but they were already a feature of politics even before his presidential terms ended. Parties already had formed for Congressional races as well as state ones, and it was only the universal admiration of Washington - something shared with no president since - that allowed him to stay above the partisan fray.

Parties, like it or not, are baked into our system. 

[BootmanLA]

In fact, as I recall, John Adams, who served as Vice-President, aligned with the Federalists for his own presidential run while Washington was still in office, while Thomas Jefferson, who was then Secretary of State, aligned with the Democratic Republicans in opposing Adams. So while parties may not have been in place during the two presidential elections won by Washington, they were solidly in place before he left office.

And again, while Washington was a non-party man, virtually all of Congress during his term was aligned with one party or the other, certainly so by the end of his second term. The idea that parties weren't part of American politics from the earliest days of the United States as we know it now (that is, under the Constitution, contrasted with under the Articles of Confederation or even the loose alliances of the Revolution) is just silly. 

[DallasPozzible]

18 hours ago, barefucker44 said:

Mike Johnson will be a great speaker.

On what basis do you make this claim? Everything I see in his past indicates he will be a disaster. Especially for LGBT and non-Christians. And he has no leadership experience to draw on.