spanky wrote: ↑Oct 25th, '23, 12:45
Johnson it is.
Democrats would’ve been better off keeping McCarthy.
Yes and no.
McCarthy certainly isn't the extremist that Johnson is, but I'd hardly call him a moderate.
I think politically this may benefit the Democrats in 2024. I'm willing to bet that Johnson has no problem shutting down the government where as McCarthy realized that is bad for the country. I'm sure that's not the only extremist thing Johnson does either.
Now the Democrats have 12.5 months to point at the GOP being completely radical from their very top position down the ranks. The Democrats can now more easily (and correctly) paint themselves as the moderate, centrist choice in government.
IMO this will only hasten the GOPs fall in the long run. Gen X, Millennials and Z will only go left harder. And Gen Alpha will only know the GOP as extremist dickheads and have zero experience with when there actually was a moderate McCain wing of the party.
deadheadskier wrote: ↑Oct 25th, '23, 15:09IMO this will only hasten the GOPs fall in the long run. Gen X, Millennials and Z will only go left harder. And Gen Alpha will only know the GOP as extremist dickheads and have zero experience with when there actually was a moderate McCain wing of the party.
daytripper wrote: ↑Oct 25th, '23, 15:45
How does shutting down the government benefit anybody?
Prevents aid from going to Israel and Ukraine. This is growing in popularity among the GOP.
Negatively impacts the economy if the shutdown is allowed to go on long enough. See #4.
Trump thinks a shutdown will prevent or delay his criminal prosecution. It won't.
It creates chaos and puts the US at risk, which Trump sees as benefitting him for 2024.
I'm sure there are others, but see how Trump/GOP used a shutdown in 2019 as leverage to get what they want.
spanky wrote: ↑Oct 25th, '23, 12:45
Johnson it is.
Democrats would’ve been better off keeping McCarthy.
But they have absolutely 0% fault in this.
I'm with you. I understand why they didn't support McCarthy - there was some sort of agreement that McCarthy didn't honor - but the end result has been chaos followed by an even more radical GOP speaker. I think democrats are just happy to watch the GOP burn, and while that might be in their best interests, is it really in ours?
spanky wrote: ↑Oct 25th, '23, 12:45
Johnson it is.
Democrats would’ve been better off keeping McCarthy.
But they have absolutely 0% fault in this.
I'm with you. I understand why they didn't support McCarthy - there was some sort of agreement that McCarthy didn't honor - but the end result has been chaos followed by an even more radical GOP speaker. I think democrats are just happy to watch the GOP burn, and while that might be in their best interests, is it really in ours?
Lomg term it probably is in our best interests- as the republicans continue to expose themselves as the radical crazies, the more they will lose and the sooner it might return to the party of John McCain/mitt Romney/Charlie Baker etc
Why does Israel need $14.3 billion in aid? They're a pretty prosperous country, aren't they? And I thought the GOP was supposed to be against giveaways to foreign countries? Seems to me that money is better spent making sure the U.S. government gets tax receipts to pay its own bills.
easyrider16 wrote: ↑Oct 31st, '23, 08:09
Why does Israel need $14.3 billion in aid? They're a pretty prosperous country, aren't they? And I thought the GOP was supposed to be against giveaways to foreign countries? Seems to me that money is better spent making sure the U.S. government gets tax receipts to pay its own bills.
They're prosperous, but don't most their defenses rely on USA military equipment/technology? I assume most of the aid, while financial in nature in the article, is actually being delivered in the form of equipment/technology? I suppose we could argue they should pay for it, but then so should Ukraine right?
XtremeJibber2001 wrote: ↑Oct 31st, '23, 10:49
I suppose we could argue they should pay for it, but then so should Ukraine right?
Sure, but Israel can probably afford it, while Ukraine probably can't. And arguably there's a stronger U.S. interest involved in helping Ukraine. What's the case for helping Israel? Seems to me it's primarily philosophical and religious opinions of U.S. voters, not anything that actually helps or hurts U.S. interests. Arguably, helping Israel actually hurts U.S. interests because it complicates our relationships with middle east countries that supply oil.
XtremeJibber2001 wrote: ↑Oct 31st, '23, 10:49
I suppose we could argue they should pay for it, but then so should Ukraine right?
Sure, but Israel can probably afford it, while Ukraine probably can't. And arguably there's a stronger U.S. interest involved in helping Ukraine. What's the case for helping Israel? Seems to me it's primarily philosophical and religious opinions of U.S. voters, not anything that actually helps or hurts U.S. interests. Arguably, helping Israel actually hurts U.S. interests because it complicates our relationships with middle east countries that supply oil.
