What is the future of the Republican Party?

[Ulty]

11 hours ago, commando said:

helping people doesn't seem to be a priority

 

 

Repubs in congress, when asked to comment:

[Archy1221]

2 hours ago, funhusker said:

8 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

If you’re okay with Desantis’s decision to veto based on politics, that’s your choice.  Have at it.

All budgets have politics associated with them.  

[Dr. Strangelove]

11 hours ago, teachercd said:

Didn't all these gasbags just give like 40 billion to Ukraine...when it could have basically been used to solve all the education issues in OUR country?

$40 billion to Ukraine is definitely a good thing. It's best to acknowledge that Congress can do both things, send money to them while also allocating money for education/baby formula/whatever else.

 

It isn't a zero sum game. 

[teachercd]

57 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

$40 billion to Ukraine is definitely a good thing. It's best to acknowledge that Congress can do both things, send money to them while also allocating money for education/baby formula/whatever else.

 

It isn't a zero sum game. 

Congress can take care of home first.

[funhusker]

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

All budgets have politics associated with them.  

If the argument is to play “politics” and selling projects using networks of who you know and persuading officials of what is and isn’t a good use of taxpayer money, I agree that it is definitely responsible govt and why we elect people.

 

But I also feel that not weighing pros/cons but instead proudly withholding money because a private business said something you don’t like is a dangerous place to go.

 

Im not naive enough to think this hasn’t always happened. But I’m not a fan of politicians doing for the world to see.  And I’m even more nervous about the many constituents that are cheering it on.

[Archy1221]

44 minutes ago, funhusker said:

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

 

If the argument is to play “politics” and selling projects using networks of who you know and persuading officials of what is and isn’t a good use of taxpayer money, I agree that it is definitely responsible govt and why we elect people.

 

But I also feel that not weighing pros/cons but instead proudly withholding money because a private business said something you don’t like is a dangerous place to go

The article you posted about talks of constituents not wanting to spend state money on major league sports teams.   It is not widely circulated amongst the Florida media that he vetoed because Rays wanted anti gun donations.  

[funhusker]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

The article you posted about talks of constituents not wanting to spend state money on major league sports teams.   It is not widely circulated amongst the Florida media that he vetoed because Rays wanted anti gun donations.  

I don’t know if you’re intentionally missing the point or not.

 

The article I posted, was the Outkick article that “broke” the news that Desantis vetoed because of a political statement the Rays made. You are correct that the article also mentions some taxpayers were against the spending.  

A conservative media personality champions the veto because he claims Desantis is a conservative champion that understands that Floridians love their guns and Condtitution.  (I’m paraphrasing here based off his other Tweets so please don’t look for those literal words).

 

A Desantis spokeswomen retweets the conservative pundits tweet with no comment.  Reasonable people could deduce that Desantis’s decision was based on the Rays statement and not the wishes of taxpayers.

 

If the decision was made because Desantis listened to taxpayers and truly felt the money was best used elsewhere, good for him and bad for the Rays.  This would be really easy to communicate, they have interns on staff to handle things like this.  Instead, Desantis is in a situation where it looks like a decision was made out of spite.  That isn’t good governance in my opinion.

Bottom line: there are two possibilities.  The veto was out of spite, or Desantis listened to the concerns of some of his constituents.  One of his spokespeople is advertising it was out of spite.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

6 hours ago, teachercd said:

Congress can take care of home first.

...they can do both. Neither comes first or second.

[teachercd]

2 hours ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

...they can do both. Neither comes first or second.

One did come first though.  I mean...we know that.

 

And even if they voted on them the same exact day...one would still come first.

 

It is okay to just say "Yeah, they should care about home first but still try to help out in other places after they help at home"

 

 

[RedDenver]

18 minutes ago, teachercd said:

One did come first though.  I mean...we know that.

 

And even if they voted on them the same exact day...one would still come first.

 

It is okay to just say "Yeah, they should care about home first but still try to help out in other places after they help at home"

 

 

It's also ok to recognize that one is a decades long problem that could be solved (but isn't) over months or years whereas the other is an immediate need due to recent events. Saying Congress should do "home" stuff first is silly.

[teachercd]

7 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

It's also ok to recognize that one is a decades long problem that could be solved (but isn't) over months or years whereas the other is an immediate need due to recent events. Saying Congress should do "home" stuff first is silly.

Wow, saying Congress should care about America first is silly...

 

Okay!

 

 

[RedDenver]

5 minutes ago, teachercd said:

No it isn't it is smart.

You know it is as well.  It is okay to admit that.

It's silly to think that things that are time-critical should have to wait for things that aren't time-critical - that's not smart but rather foolish.

[teachercd]

1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

It's silly to think that things that are time-critical should have to wait for things that aren't time-critical - that's not smart but rather foolish.

I glad we agree...we both think it is foolish to ignore the issue of education and teacher shortage in the country.  

 

It is rare on this site where people start off on opposite ends but after just a few posts realize and can agree on one point making sense.  

 

Thank you, I appreciate it.  

[Archy1221]

7 hours ago, funhusker said:

I don’t know if you’re intentionally missing the point or not.

 

The article I posted, was the Outkick article that “broke” the news that Desantis vetoed because of a political statement the Rays made. You are correct that the article also mentions some taxpayers were against the spending.  

A conservative media personality champions the veto because he claims Desantis is a conservative champion that understands that Floridians love their guns and Condtitution.  (I’m paraphrasing here based off his other Tweets so please don’t look for those literal words).

 

A Desantis spokeswomen retweets the conservative pundits tweet with no comment.  Reasonable people could deduce that Desantis’s decision was based on the Rays statement and not the wishes of taxpayers.

 

If the decision was made because Desantis listened to taxpayers and truly felt the money was best used elsewhere, good for him and bad for the Rays.  This would be really easy to communicate, they have interns on staff to handle things like this.  Instead, Desantis is in a situation where it looks like a decision was made out of spite.  That isn’t good governance in my opinion.

Bottom line: there are two possibilities.  The veto was out of spite, or Desantis listened to the concerns of some of his constituents.  One of his spokespeople is advertising it was out of spite.

 

I’m not intentionally missing whatever point you are trying to make.   I’m giving you another possible explanation as to why the funding was vetoed, which interestingly enough, you admit is a possibility later on in your own post.   Here is further clarification for you…..

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

This is the best Republicans have for this race.