Jump to content


What is the future of the Republican Party?


Recommended Posts


1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

It’s interesting that Republicans are so concerned about the precedent being set by the Dems.....when they seem to not be concerned at all about the precedent being set by them supporting a Qanon, racist wacko like her.  

 

And it's not really much of a precedent. Members of Congress have faced discipline before. This is a pretty spurious argument. It's legal, there are procedures in place.

 

And if we can't discipline someone for literally threatening the lives of other members of Congress, then we need to stop pretending we're a nation governed by the rule of law.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

And it's not really much of a precedent. Members of Congress have faced discipline before. This is a pretty spurious argument. It's legal, there are procedures in place.

 

And if we can't discipline someone for literally threatening the lives of other members of Congress, then we need to stop pretending we're a nation governed by the rule of law.

It’s allowing the other party to decide who can or can’t sit on a committee.  Those decisions are for each individual party to assess.  

 

Put up a Vote to kick her out if they want.  The committee assignment vote is stupid. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Archy1221 said:

It’s allowing the other party to decide who can or can’t sit on a committee.  Those decisions are for each individual party to assess.  

 

Put up a Vote to kick her out if they want.  The committee assignment vote is stupid. 

 

It's allowing Congress to decide who constitutes their committees, which is perfectly legal. There's procedural framework for the whole process. 

 

Republicans got a say in this, too. They voted. They just came up short. 

 

So. Legal. Constitutional. Proper. Necessary.

 

Win/Win for America!

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

And it's not really much of a precedent. Members of Congress have faced discipline before. This is a pretty spurious argument. It's legal, there are procedures in place.

 

And if we can't discipline someone for literally threatening the lives of other members of Congress, then we need to stop pretending we're a nation governed by the rule of law.

It’s allowing the other party to decide who can or can’t sit on a committee.  Those decisions are for each individual party to assess.  

 

Vote to kick her out if that’s what everyone wants. I would be fine with that 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

13 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

It’s allowing the other party to decide who can or can’t sit on a committee.  Those decisions are for each individual party to assess.  

 

Vote to kick her out if that’s what everyone wants. I would be fine with that 

It's allowing the other party to decide who or who can't be president.  Those decisions are for the voters to assess.

 

Vote for the other candidate if that's what everyone wants.  I would be fine with that.

 

Said no Trumpster ever

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

 

Sasse is 100% correct about this.

 

He also pointed out - rightly, and embarrassingly for the trumpists - that Sasse received more votes in Nebraska than trump:  583,507 compared to trump's 556,846.

 

 

 

Let's see where Ben lands on conviction.  I'm hoping he sides with the rule of law and democracy.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

30 minutes ago, Scarlet said:

Let's see where Ben lands on conviction.  I'm hoping he sides with the rule of law and democracy.

Woah, woah, woah, woah. Hold your horses there. Sasse likes to talk about how smart and ethical he is, but voting the line is all he is good for. Speak loudly and carry a small stick or something...I don't know. 

  • Plus1 3
Link to comment

Sasse is right about this, but yeah, I've always had a love hate relationship with him. He says things to seem a certain way but then largely votes exactly as you would expect him to regardless of nuance or circumstance.

 

But, to his credit, he was at least willing to call out Trump's BS over the years. And to reiterate, he is right about this.

  • Plus1 3
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Scarlet said:

It's allowing the other party to decide who or who can't be president.  Those decisions are for the voters to assess.

 

Vote for the other candidate if that's what everyone wants.  I would be fine with that.

 

Said no Trumpster ever

You make zero sense with this dribble and obviously have no idea how committee assignments are handed out.  Kuddos. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
50 minutes ago, Enhance said:

Sasse is right about this, but yeah, I've always had a love hate relationship with him. He says things to seem a certain way but then largely votes exactly as you would expect him to regardless of nuance or circumstance.

 

But, to his credit, he was at least willing to call out Trump's BS over the years. And to reiterate, he is right about this.

In Sasse's defense, he voted along party lines, not necessarily Trump's.  Trump pushed through what any other GOP President would have, he just said some really obnoxious things and looked like a douche while doing it.  And there really isn't anything anyone can do except call out the silly behavior, which Sasse did.  I wouldn't expect GOP Reps and Senators to give up there motives just because they don't like the President.

 

But his vote and/or soundbites will be interesting come Senate trial time...

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...