Decline of the GOP - XVII

Politics

Matt Gaetz, former Trump AG pick, had sex with underage girl while in Congress, House Ethics report says​

The House Ethics Committee on Monday revealed it found “substantial evidence” that former Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz had sex with a 17-year-old girl in 2017 and that he “regularly” paid women for sex, all while he was in Congress.

The panel, in a final report on its yearslong investigation into Gaetz, also found that he used illegal drugs, including cocaine and ecstasy, on multiple occasions between 2017 and 2019.
Gaetz also accepted gifts, including a 2018 trip to the Bahamas, “in excess of permissible amounts,” the bipartisan committee concluded.

“Representative Gaetz has acted in a manner that reflects discreditably upon the House,” the 42-page report said.

The committee said it found “substantial evidence that Representative Gaetz violated House Rules, state and federal laws, and other standards of conduct prohibiting prostitution, statutory rape, illicit drug use, acceptance of impermissible gifts, the provision of special favors and privileges, and obstruction of Congress.”

At the urging of a colleague I downloaded a Charlie Kirk podcast that happened to be on the Matt Gaetz 'witch hunt' and in which Kirk claimed Gaetz to be a fine family man and Christian. Right after Gaetz was pretty much proven to have had relations with the 17-year-old when they were all drunk and doing lines of blow. I did not download another of his podcasts.
 

Klein: Were Medicare and Medicaid mistakes?

Ramaswamy: I believe they were. With the benefit of retrospect, particularly Medicaid.

By all means, Vivek, run on this.



==============================

For those too young to recall or not well-versed in their history:

In 1976, Ronald Reagan was putting the fear of God into appointed President Gerald Ford in the GOP primaries. It was so close, in fact, it wound up in a floor fight. In late May with the race a dead heat, Reagan made an appearance in Knoxville and the journalist brought up to Reagan that his hero, Barry Goldwater, had proposed in 1964 to privatize the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), something no conservative with a brain had even suggested since. It was one of those areas where, as George Will notes, "Americans are conservative. What they want to conserve is the New Deal." The journalist brought up Reagan's ideological opposition to government competition with private enterprise, and Reagan (to his credit) didn't deny that philosophically his conservative views did not allow for something like the TVA, but it was "there, a fact of life." Nothing wrong with this at all. Until he added seven words that destroyed him.

Asked if he endorsed the idea of privatizing the TVA - Goldwater had said "we ought to sell it off" - Reagan said, "It would be something to look at." That phrase was hoisted on the front page of newspapers and Ford, himself pretty conservative, ran with it and called out the Tennessee Republicans like Howard Baker to tear into Reagan.

Reagan then lost Tennessee by less than 2,000 votes and Kentucky by about 5700 votes. When they arrived at the Convention, Reagan was 43 delegates behind Ford and losing those two states had cost him 39 - plus momentum in the contests..


It isn't possible to prove conclusively, but it is not beyond the realm of reasonableness that Reagan lost the 1976 nomination to Ford based on TWO conservative blunders where ideologically surpassed practicality, his $93 billion boondoggle screwup in New Hampshire (if only 657 votes were switched from Ford the Reagan, the Gipper wins and as Ford was never elected.......it was probably over then) and his TVA blunder.
 

Representative Greg Steube (Florida): Was a clear sky this am, now this. Didn’t Florida ban spraying chemicals in our sky’s? We need to ban it nationwide. There is no way that water vapor would stay that long in the sky.



Sigh: 1) skies 2) you can't see water vapor 3) "spraying chemicals"

This MAGA moron is a wonderful example of today's GOP.
 
  • Facepalm
Reactions: crimsonaudio
BREAKING:

Senator Grassley (R-IA) will NOT support the SAVE Act.

Despite the fact that the U.S. Constitution clearly states that Congress may regulate elections,

Senator Grassley wrote, “I do not believe that Iowa and other states need politicians in Washington, D.C. dictating and controlling how states run their elections.”


This is why the people hate you (and the rest of your ilk in the GOP.) This is how you lose indie/third-party support, too.
 

Imagine arguing with a straight face that Congress seriously intended to give the president the power to impose "emergency" tariffs on imports from US treaty allies so he could forcibly acquire the territory of one of those allies.

It's just ridiculous. But here we are.

Every President (not just Trump) has always thought he should have more power than he was given.

It should be noted, however, that even the sleaziest ones we've had (prior to this one) understood a number of things were never going to happen regardless. Bush 41 wanted the line item veto for budgeting, and Gingrich and the Boys gave Clinton the power.....which was retracted by SCOTUS.

"I wasn't alive then, but Congress meant to give me this power nobody ever had."

I look forward to President AOC deploying the ATF into red states in 2029 after a mass shooting, declaring that we have to confiscate firearms as an emergency to stop school shootings. And then watch the same Republicans who sat on their hands when it was their boy start screaming bloody murder.

Politicians need to contemplate the reality of living under the crap they're okay with if the other side gets it, which is why I keep saying Democrats need to be thanking karma/God/whoever they didn't abolish the filibuster in 2022. (I smirk with relish at the idea the GOP gerrymandering project in Texas might well screw them over - simply because they continue to be dumb enough to listen to the Orange Toddler).
 
I know exaggeration is a useful tool for making a point, but you've aroused my curiosity. Do you think this is possible?

Probably not.

However - here is where I would caution everyone to realize that this country counter-programs Presidents with incredible decisions.

Nixon got elected because we didn't care about character, we cared about results.
He got the boot and we wanted an ethical government, so here came Carter.
Then we got bothered by Carter's seriousness and hired the good time Charlie, Ronald Reagan.
He was hands off, so we went hands on with Bush 41.
He was a foreign policy president, so here came Mr. Domestic, Clinton.
Clinton embarrassed us so we went with "we want a Republican Clinton without scandal," here's W.
Then we're neck deep in two wars and a recession, so we go for the guy without any kind of record, Obama, but he gives a great speech, replacing the guy who talked like English was his second language.
We went from bumbling syllables (W) to gifted orator (Obama) to one step removed from the missing link (Trump)
He mismanages the worst pandemic in a century and so we want.....something different.
That something is so different, we decide we want the missing link back, hence, Trump.

Who better to represent a counterprogram to a guy who hates browns, hates women, and misuses the agencies than a bartending Barbie who can stand there and say, "After listening to Trump grunt through speeches the last decade, this is what a coherent New Yorker sounds like."

It's probably unrealistic - unless the GOP insists on nominating Trump Lite. Then it's 1 of 2.
 
  • Thank You
Reactions: UAH

Representative Greg Steube (Florida): Was a clear sky this am, now this. Didn’t Florida ban spraying chemicals in our sky’s? We need to ban it nationwide. There is no way that water vapor would stay that long in the sky.



Sigh: 1) skies 2) you can't see water vapor 3) "spraying chemicals"

This MAGA moron is a wonderful example of today's GOP.
This clown doesn’t even understand elementary physics…
 
G_I5wrvXUAEEGEO
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huckleberry
Advertisement

Advertisement

Latest threads