You said that.
I did not, and I need not answer for your strawman.
My post was a call to escape party politics.
Listening to some Priest when picking out a user name were we? 
Good to see you man.
Other than the very embarrassing loss for Trump and him having to clean about 31 eggs off of his face, you might be right.
1 Like
Hmmm. I suspect that if liberal legislation were passed as it was in the demonstrable âbest interests of the countryâ you wouldnât care for it very much as it ran afoul of your own ideology.
Shutting down the farm billâwith all of its stakeholders in flyover countryâbecause of immigration grievances is and interesting vehicle to use to convince moderates to become more extreme.
Nonetheless, the GOPs who voted against this bill were elected by THEIR constituents to vote this way. These are not the voters who are âmore moderate in their actual principles and beliefsâ. These guys did what they were sent there to do.
Saw Priest a few weeks back. âHell bent, hell bent for leather!â
You, as well. And it was actually Slayer.
I didnât comment at all on whether or not this bill was in the âbest interests of the countryâ. That has nothing to do with what Iâve posted. Youâre just projecting your imagination into what you think you are reading in my post.
PS: Anything that is in the DEMONSTRABLE best interest of this country has my support. Just donât expect me to abide by your view of âdemonstrableâ. Thatâs really where the debate on any issue lands.
Try Gilead. I hear theyâre less âmoderate.â
Iâll bet you a dollar the farm bill will be back.
True. But what will be the, potentially unintended, consequence of their decision?
As PG pointed out earlier, often times when the FC digs in their heels, rather than compromising with their own party, the end result is that the leaders of their party have to end up compromising with Democrats and what we end up with is even more liberal concessions and legislation. Iâm making no judgment on the convictions of the FC, but this tends to be reality nonetheless. Seems counterproductive in a way, doesnât it?
People want immigration fixed, resolved, remedied, and enforced. The dems voting against the bill because of the SNAP work requirements offered a way to remind the GOP leadership to do their jobs, when it comes to immigration.
The GOP has had a year to fix immigration, and they havenât.
A much more liberal version.
1 Like
So, do their job, and fix the immigration issues, and they wonât have to compromise with the other Party.
From one perspective, perhaps.
It also demonstrates that the GOP leadership would rather move left than right. And that all the Obama-era posturing was pure BS.
Now itâs up to the voters to decide what they want to do about that.
Yup, sorry about that, right after I hit the clicky to reply, I saw the other link, but it was too late. It would be nice to be able to edit our own posts.
1 Like
yup, all that âroot and branchâ talk by the leadership, was just to get elected. when the actually get behind the plate, they balk.
That is what this was all about. The FC wanted assurances they would get to vote on the Goodlatte bill. Party Leadership gave them a date certain for that vote in June. Party Leadership also assured more moderate members of an opportunity to vote on bipartisan compromise legislation on immigration, to shut down the DACA-amnesty-only discharge they are working on getting done, which would override Party Leadership. All sides were in agreement, and at the last minute the FC reneged on the deal and walked away from the table.
What does that leave the Party Leadership left with as options?
Of that, there was always little doubt in my mind. Now, that being said, it is the party itself that elected the leaders they have that act this way.
As for voters, it seems in most Primaries, it is the incumbent staying put, or it is a Trump style candidate replacing a retiring, open seat. Not a lot of Tea Party/Freedom Caucus types out there giving voters an option.
