OOPS: McCarthy Accidentally Posts & Frantically Hides Extreme MAGA Agenda

[SCrider]

You are fighting a strawman.

Yes, the GOP's agenda is a strawman.

 

[Craig234]

I appreciate the efforts of those who wish to defend the nostalgic view of the party. I'm sometimes one of those. But, I've recently come to view my own views as horribly naive. Looking into the history of the party, and the influence of the conservatives within it, I realize that those threads have always been there. What is different, now, is that there is no moderation of those views. It's just the extremists.

Here's the thing. It's extremely difficult and pretty untenable for the US to have two major parties where one is terrible and deserves to be shunned by nearly everyone; that state of affairs almost forces the politics to shift to normalize and move to make the terrible party more accepted. Many people aren't comfortable feeling "partisan" by accurately recognizing when there is a great imbalance. But good for you on this.

 

[RealityNow]

But we have screenshots

OOPS: McCarthy Accidentally Posts & Frantically Hides Extreme MAGA Agenda (But We Have Screenshots...)

From the Speaker's Press Office: OOPS. Looks like Leader McCarthy fumbled his agenda rollout by accidentally posting the webpage of House Republicans’ “Commitment to America” – and then scrambled to password protect the website again… …but not before we got screenshots. Screenshots that reveal...

web.archive.org

McCarthy's... Coded Wording is a reiteration of Lee Atwater's 1981 Interviews Declaration Statements !!!

• McCarthy's updated verion is not about just a Southern Stragery, McCarthy wants to expand that agenda "across the nation".

​

 

[cpwill]

Yes, the GOP's agenda is a strawman.

What is this, the I'm rubber, you're glue approach?

 

[NWRatCon]

If everyone one is EXTREME MAGA on the right, then no one is, and the term loses it's meaning.

Have the policy debate, sure. But conflating support for the First Amendment with attempting to overthrow our form of government is stupid.

Just as a point of order, it's not support for the First Amendment. It's support for only certain actors using the First Amendment in manners never intended by the founders. There's no question that the First Amendment is there for a reason, but many of those reasons are ignored by MAGAs in particular, and conservatives in general, in support of particular results rather than in support of the underlying principles.

Thus, for example, suppressing speech by disfavored groups is perfectly fine, establishing religion is perfectly fine - as long as it is christian - etc. Florida is a microcosm of these kinds of abuses, but you can find them throughout the South, frankly.

 

[NWRatCon]

You are fighting a strawman.

Then stop adding straw, man.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I loathe what McCarthy has done and I hope that, in a final pique of disloyalty, Trump finds a way to deny him the Speakership he's sold his soul for, but, I'm confused about how any of this is supposedly an EXTREME MAGA AGENDA as opposed to.... standard Conservative policy positions....

Because NONE of it is what the agenda actually is, that's how.
Ever hear of "alternative facts" and "forward looking statements"?
Sorry, I do not buy a single word any of it says, it's CODE SPEAK.

DEMOCRAT SOCIALIST DRUG TAKEOVER???
OMG TEH SOCIALISMZ!!!☭☭☭
Come on man, are you kidding?

The whole thing reads like a NINE year old wrote it while smoking crack.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

What is this, the I'm rubber, you're glue approach?

No, it's a reaction to you desperately trying to put lipstick on a pig, except you're not stopping at lipstick.
Nope, you've put on the lipstick and now you're outfitting the sow in sexy lingerie!

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

But we have screenshots

OOPS: McCarthy Accidentally Posts & Frantically Hides Extreme MAGA Agenda (But We Have Screenshots...)

From the Speaker's Press Office: OOPS. Looks like Leader McCarthy fumbled his agenda rollout by accidentally posting the webpage of House Republicans’ “Commitment to America” – and then scrambled to password protect the website again… …but not before we got screenshots. Screenshots that reveal...

web.archive.org

Let's give McCarthy credit for one thing -- I would be embarrassed as well to post such a vague, bullshit agenda for the public to see.

That bullshit about American voters "losing faith in our elections" pisses me off the most. No, what the Republicans REALLY mean is that this country has a bunch of sore loser MAGA fascist cry babies who can't accept election defeat anymore.

 

[cpwill]

Because NONE of it is what the agenda actually is, that's how.
Ever hear of "alternative facts" and "forward looking statements"?
Sorry, I do not buy a single word any of it says, it's CODE SPEAK.

If it's code, how come you can read it, and what kind of code is supposed to be secure if a hundred million people have access to it?

Is it truly so impossible to entertain the thought that people might actually just disagree with you, or that politicians like to simplify positions into slogans?

 

[cpwill]

Then stop adding straw, man.

As near as I can tell, this post does not, actually, refer to anything.

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

If it's code, how come you can read it, and what kind of code is supposed to be secure if a hundred million people have access to it?

Is it truly so impossible to entertain the thought that people might actually just disagree with you, or that politicians like to simplify positions into slogans?

Is it impossible for you to see the Republican agenda for the bullshit that it is?

"Millions of American voters losing faith in our elections"....Seriously? What that REALLY means is a bunch of MAGA sore loser fascist cry babies who can't accept election defeat anymore.

And if you agree with that statement, then you are basically saying that you agree with the 147 Republicans who voted on Jan 6 to overturn Biden's victory.

 

[cpwill]

Just as a point of order, it's not support for the First Amendment. It's support for only certain actors using the First Amendment in manners never intended by the founders. There's no question that the First Amendment is there for a reason, but many of those reasons are ignored by MAGAs in particular, and conservatives in general, in support of particular results rather than in support of the underlying principles.

Thus, for example, suppressing speech by disfavored groups is perfectly fine, establishing religion is perfectly fine - as long as it is christian - etc. Florida is a microcosm of these kinds of abuses, but you can find them throughout the South, frankly.

You'll get no defense from me for the Texas or Florida social media laws, but neither of those is being proposed here.

 

[cpwill]

Is it impossible for you to see the Republican agenda for the bullshit that it is?

There are parts of the GOP I agree with, and parts I disagree with - I'm some cases, quite strongly.

However, other people's positions don't become "BS" just because they happen to disagree with me.

"Millions of American voters losing faith in our elections"....Seriously? What that REALLY means is a bunch of MAGA sore loser fascist cry babies who can't accept election defeat anymore.

I'm so old I can remember the elections of 2000, 2004, and 2016. Democrats may want to consider their glass house if they want to keep throwing stones about undermining faith in our electoral system.

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

There are parts of the GOP I agree with, and parts I disagree with - I'm some cases, quite strongly.

However, other people's positions don't become "BS" just because they happen to disagree with me.




I'm so old I can remember the elections of 2000, 2004, and 2016. Democrats may want to consider their glass house if they want to keep throwing stones about undermining faith in our electoral system.

Except 147 Democrats in Congress didn't vote to overturn Bush's or Trump's victory. And there was no violent mob attack on the Capitol by Democrats, either. Therefore, your counter-argument is a weak house of cards.

All you're doing is justifying propaganda.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

If it's code, how come you can read it, and what kind of code is supposed to be secure if a hundred million people have access to it?

Is it truly so impossible to entertain the thought that people might actually just disagree with you, or that politicians like to simplify positions into slogans?

Are we talking about the actual disagreement and the issues or are we talking about something else now?

 

[RealityNow]

No, it's a reaction to you desperately trying to put lipstick on a pig, except you're not stopping at lipstick.
Nope, you've put on the lipstick and now you're outfitting the sow in sexy lingerie!

Be careful when showing something to such sexually obsessed people such as Right Wingers, that picture may " erotically arouse these Right Winger" to start having more "wet dreams'

 

[NWRatCon]

I'll get to your other points soon, but I did want to address this separately:

I'm so old I can remember the elections of 2000, 2004, and 2016. Democrats may want to consider their glass house if they want to keep throwing stones about undermining faith in our electoral system.

I recognize that this is a rhetorical exaggeration, because, frankly, there is no comparison. But, I have a copy of What Went Wrong In Ohio: The Conyers Report on the 2004 Presidential Election (Paperback – August 30, 2005).

Here's the difference between 2000, when EVERYONE knows the outcome was dictated by a partisan Supreme Court, and 2004, when there were legitimate shenanigans that occurred in Ohio (hence, the above report). But here's the difference:
Democrats play within the lines. In 2000, Al Gore accepted the results and gave a great speech in his concession. What did the Republicans do? They staged a faux riot to disrupt the process. They didn't just file suits, they tried to prevent the counting of votes by enjoining that activity. The response to the Ohio problem was an inquiry and a report - and, by the way, an elimination of many of the issues raised thereby.

I have no idea what you are talking about in 2016. The kvetching wasn't about the voting, per se (except the overt vote suppression), but the antiquated and anti-democratic Electoral College system. And, of course, the intervention of James Comey at the last minute, that quite literally tipped the results. (538 did an analysis of that.) That is different than the voting process (but I suspect you know that). Democrats have great faith in our electoral system - which is why more of them have voted in every election for 30 years or so. What they complain about is manipulation of that system by suppression of votes, radical gerrymandering, and outright fraud. All of those problems are fomented by Republicans, n'est-ce pas?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Be careful when showing something to such sexually obsessed people such as Right Wingers, that picture may " erotically arouse these Right Winger" to start having more "wet dreams'

I was searching for "pig in lingerie" (OMG what must my internet provider think of me hahahahaha) and this was so disturbing that I laughed till my face hurt.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I'm so old I can remember the elections of 2000, 2004, and 2016. Democrats may want to consider their glass house if they want to keep throwing stones about undermining faith in our electoral system.

Apparently your memory is selective, like forgetting Roger Stone's "Brooks Brothers Riot" in Florida, like forgetting that Gore conceded.

 

[NWRatCon]

There are parts of the GOP I agree with, and parts I disagree with - I'm some cases, quite strongly.

Let's talk about those disagreements, shall we? That, I think, would move the conversation along nicely.

However, other people's positions don't become "BS" just because they happen to disagree with me.

The problem is not that (although I challenge your assertion), it's that it becomes "not BS" just because you happen to agree with them. The quality of "being BS" doesn't change, just the perception of it.

 

[cpwill]

Except 147 Democrats in Congress didn't vote to overturn Bush's or Trump's victory. And there was no violent mob attack on the Capitol by Democrats, either

Oh, it's absolutely true that the one time the Republicans have decided (thus far) to act like Democrats have done multiple times, they did so far worse. That's long been a right wing threat to the left wing: " You're not going to like it when we start using your rules against you".

all you're doing is justifying propaganda.

Feel free to actually check my record when it comes to Trump or the insurrection. What I'm doing here is called "consistently applying a standard"; something that is generally infuriating to partisans who want to hold up standards for the other team, but not their own.

Much of the groundwork for Republicans refusal to accept the 2020 elections was laid down by Democrats. Wise Democrats would recognize that, and try to get their party to stop playing with fire, just as wise Republicans should recognize the threat to the Republic that their leadership became, and get rid of them.

Unfortunately, we have very, very, few wise Democrats or Republicans; and the base voters of each tend to get rid of those who are out there. The American people, it seems, don't want to be wise. We want to be tribalistic, fear-driven rage monkeys, instead.

 

[NWRatCon]

Oh, it's absolutely true that the one time the Republicans have decided (thus far) to act like Democrats have done multiple times, they did so far worse. That's long been a right wing threat to the left wing: " You're not going to like it when we start using your rules against you".

Okay, now THAT, I think we can all agree, is just bullshit, or straw, or just partisan doublespeak. Which gets to the next assertion:

What I'm doing here is called "consistently applying a standard"; something that is generally infuriating to partisans who want to hold up standards for the other team, but not their own.

What is partisan for me, may not be partisan for thee. I respect you, my friend, but this isn't actually true, I am loathe to point out. I agree that you are consistent, but not in the way you assert. While not as blatant as many (many, many, many), no one here is unaware of the particular partisan slant, except, maybe, yourself. You assert (without factual references, I might add) that "Democrats did it first", but that is simply a figment of your partisan imagination.

Much of the groundwork for Republicans refusal to accept the 2020 elections was laid down by Democrats.

Prove it. And then I will demonstrate the error of your ways.

But, I will agree with your parting formulation:

Wise Democrats would recognize that, and try to get their party to stop playing with fire, just as wise Republicans should recognize the threat to the Republic that their leadership became, and get rid of them.

Unfortunately, we have very, very, few wise Democrats or Republicans; and the base voters of each tend to get rid of those who are out there. The American people, it seems, don't want to be wise. We want to be tribalistic, fear-driven rage monkeys, instead.

 

[cpwill]

Let's talk about those disagreements, shall we? That, I think, would move the conversation along nicely

It's easy enough. The Republican Party has become a nationalist party, at home with big spending, large government, and the overriding of classic liberal values. Republicans kvetching today about how Biden's big spending has given us inflation who supported massive spending under Trump are hypocritical and indicative that the party has become unmoored. Republicans complaining about Democrats attempts to pick winners and losers in the economy are the same. Republicans who complain about left-wingers trying to shut down right wing speech, who turn around and attempt to limit the speech of others are also the same.

I don't disagree with the GOP because I am no longer conservative, but because the GOP increasingly no longer is. I wish that the GOP looked less like Democrats, policy-wise.

The problem is not that (although I challenge your assertion), it's that it becomes "not BS" just because you happen to agree with them. The quality of "being BS" doesn't change, just the perception of it.

People have the ability to observe the same (or slightly different) pattern of fact, and come in good faith to different conclusions. Our increasing inability to grasp and apply that mostly demonstrates the extent to which our society is retreating to our bubbles.

 

[cpwill]

Okay, now THAT, I think we can all agree, is just bullshit, or straw, or just partisan doublespeak. Which gets to the next assertion:

No, partisan doublespeak is an attempt at dishonesty, to explain why standards for one team shouldn't be applied to both.

What is partisan for me, may not be partisan for thee. I respect you, my friend, but this isn't actually true, I am loathe to point out. I agree that you are consistent, but not in the way you assert. While not as blatant as many (many, many, many), no one here is unaware of the particular partisan slant, except, maybe, yourself. You assert (without factual references, I might add) that "Democrats did it first", but that is simply a figment of your partisan imagination.

I have not claimed that "Democrats did it first" - I don't know enough about election history and subsequent partisan messaging to make that claim with accuracy. I pointed out that, in the past few decades, Democrats are the ones who have been doing it, up until 2020, when Republicans decided to do so, and their doing so became more destructive than Democrats previous iterations.

Prove it. And then I will demonstrate the error of your ways.

Do you really claim to not know what I'm talking about? Democrats claimed the 2000 election had been stolen by SCOTUS, Democrats claimed the 2004 election had been stolen in Ohio by a big ole mean corporation, Democrats claimed that the 2016 election had been stolen by Russia, and Democrats claimed the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election had been stolen by "suppression". Since taking office, Joe Biden has refused to say that the elections this year will be necessarily legitimate, and, in fact, has suggested that they won't be if he doesn't get the legislation he wants passed.

If you want to respond to that with a "yes but, there is a difference in degree because Jan 6", then okay. But that still means those other things happened, and we shouldn't pretend they didn't.

But, I will agree with your parting formulation:

Fair enough. You've asked me where I disagree with the GOP, and I responded. Can you accept and acknowledge the damage that was (and, if they continue to do it, will continue to be, just as it will continue to be by comparable Republicans) done by Democrats also undercutting public confidence in elections?