Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
House Republicans Thread / 2022 Mid-term Elections Thread
Author Message
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,279
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #981
RE: House Republicans Thread / 2022 Mid-term Elections Thread
(10-26-2023 10:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
Quote:Again, I just think it crazy to suggest that he simply threw a bomb and then sat back and watched the dumpster fire. Nothing in his family history of politics, nor really any remotely 'seasoned' member suggests such logical capriciousness.

And similarly nothing in his family history of politics suggests a plan of any sort.

Nice conjecture you have going. Based on the utter silence of the group after the fact, it sure doesnt look like they had much plan beyond 'blowing the wheels off McCarthy'.

If you want to offer objective facts instead of speculation, Im all ears.

Well let's start with the obvious. You have no facts either, but it doesn't stop you from speaking as if you do. Your comment that nothing in his family history of politics suggests a plan of any sort is simply demonstrably false. You may not like their plans or agree with them or think they are high minded or what have you, but he clearly followed in his father's footsteps. That alone seems planned... and he raised money and sought specific seats etc etc etc... plans.

And then we can finish with the fact that his two articulated preferences for speaker... people he has voted for before... and seems to have clear reason to support again... were absolutely nominated and came to a vote. I can't prove that this was his plan but it sure is a hell of a coincidence.... and then of course throw in that the selected person seems to similarly be at least in the direction of MAGA....

So the obvious evidence that he had a plan is that the outcome went his general direction. The leadership moved 'right'.

Evidence that he DIDN'T have a plan would have been to torpedo McCarthy and then have a Democrat or a Romney/Warren type elected.

It would be incredibly odd that someone with little to no power acted with no planning and yet it seems he still got concessions from the party.

You don't have to agree with me. This is my opinion.... but you really need to stop acting as if you have some 'greater insight' into anyone but yourself.... just because you don't like the person or his politics. I don't particularly like his politics either, but that doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's doing.


(10-25-2023 03:33 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I think his previous comments regarding gay people were pretty despicable but the GOP reps are free to vote as they see fit. Personally I find comments like that incredibly troublesome and, as I noted before, to be quite outside the beliefs of the voting public. I don't think culture wars are a winning ticket for the GOP. They, IMO, should stick to concentrating on their supposed values of cutting taxes, a strong military, reducing the deficit, securing our borders, etc. To me that is much more of a winning formula.

To 93, I agree with you that his previous comments are problematic... about issues related to those comments. I'm similarly troubled by many of Biden's comments, especially over his career... as are plenty of Democrats... but many support him anyway because of 'other' facets of his personality or platform. Gay marriage is the law... the odds that this changes are IMO close to zero as plenty of Republicans like me wouldn't support such a law... but I really don't care what any individual's personal opinions are on the issue.

The only people who vote for this guy are his constituents. Unless and until he uses his speaker position to advance this 'out of step' agenda, isn't this all just fear-mongering?

Pelosi was anti-gun, and she certainly tried to pass some laws in that regard... but with a few exceptions, mostly failed to fulfill her personal statements about banning guns.
(This post was last modified: 10-26-2023 01:54 PM by Hambone10.)
10-26-2023 01:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rice93 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,325
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 48
I Root For:
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #982
RE: House Republicans Thread / 2022 Mid-term Elections Thread
(10-26-2023 01:51 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(10-26-2023 10:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
Quote:Again, I just think it crazy to suggest that he simply threw a bomb and then sat back and watched the dumpster fire. Nothing in his family history of politics, nor really any remotely 'seasoned' member suggests such logical capriciousness.

And similarly nothing in his family history of politics suggests a plan of any sort.

Nice conjecture you have going. Based on the utter silence of the group after the fact, it sure doesnt look like they had much plan beyond 'blowing the wheels off McCarthy'.

If you want to offer objective facts instead of speculation, Im all ears.

Well let's start with the obvious. You have no facts either, but it doesn't stop you from speaking as if you do. Your comment that nothing in his family history of politics suggests a plan of any sort is simply demonstrably false. You may not like their plans or agree with them or think they are high minded or what have you, but he clearly followed in his father's footsteps. That alone seems planned... and he raised money and sought specific seats etc etc etc... plans.

And then we can finish with the fact that his two articulated preferences for speaker... people he has voted for before... and seems to have clear reason to support again... were absolutely nominated and came to a vote. I can't prove that this was his plan but it sure is a hell of a coincidence.... and then of course throw in that the selected person seems to similarly be at least in the direction of MAGA....

So the obvious evidence that he had a plan is that the outcome went his general direction. The leadership moved 'right'.

Evidence that he DIDN'T have a plan would have been to torpedo McCarthy and then have a Democrat or a Romney/Warren type elected.

It would be incredibly odd that someone with little to no power acted with no planning and yet it seems he still got concessions from the party.

You don't have to agree with me. This is my opinion.... but you really need to stop acting as if you have some 'greater insight' into anyone but yourself.... just because you don't like the person or his politics. I don't particularly like his politics either, but that doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's doing.


(10-25-2023 03:33 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I think his previous comments regarding gay people were pretty despicable but the GOP reps are free to vote as they see fit. Personally I find comments like that incredibly troublesome and, as I noted before, to be quite outside the beliefs of the voting public. I don't think culture wars are a winning ticket for the GOP. They, IMO, should stick to concentrating on their supposed values of cutting taxes, a strong military, reducing the deficit, securing our borders, etc. To me that is much more of a winning formula.

To 93, I agree with you that his previous comments are problematic... about issues related to those comments. I'm similarly troubled by many of Biden's comments, especially over his career... as are plenty of Democrats... but many support him anyway because of 'other' facets of his personality or platform. Gay marriage is the law... the odds that this changes are IMO close to zero as plenty of Republicans like me wouldn't support such a law... but I really don't care what any individual's personal opinions are on the issue.

The only people who vote for this guy are his constituents. Unless and until he uses his speaker position to advance this 'out of step' agenda, isn't this all just fear-mongering?

Pelosi was anti-gun, and she certainly tried to pass some laws in that regard... but with a few exceptions, mostly failed to fulfill her personal statements about banning guns.

Not fear-mongering. I wasn't implying that his being named speaker is especially troublesome for supporters of gay marriage. But I will point out that it speaks to the current GOP that the fact that Emmer had voted for gay marriage in the past was considered a strike against him by many.

I AM saying that people who refer to gay people as "depraved" are people that I consider to be pretty crappy to be honest. I don't understand how one can consider oneself Christian/WWJD and say stuff like that. Like gay people have just decided one day to have homosexual relations like one decides to start wearing bow ties or to buy a Peleton. Like it's not the way that God created them from the get-go and that they had absolutely no say in the matter. Again... f*** Mike Johnson. But he's the direction of today's GOP. Good luck to everybody.
10-26-2023 02:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,112
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #983
RE: House Republicans Thread / 2022 Mid-term Elections Thread
(10-26-2023 01:51 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(10-26-2023 10:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
Quote:Again, I just think it crazy to suggest that he simply threw a bomb and then sat back and watched the dumpster fire. Nothing in his family history of politics, nor really any remotely 'seasoned' member suggests such logical capriciousness.

And similarly nothing in his family history of politics suggests a plan of any sort.

Nice conjecture you have going. Based on the utter silence of the group after the fact, it sure doesnt look like they had much plan beyond 'blowing the wheels off McCarthy'.

If you want to offer objective facts instead of speculation, Im all ears.

Well let's start with the obvious. You have no facts either,

Correct. There is *nothing* anywhere that says 'how, what, why not' that Gaetz put any iota of anything into this. I dont think I have ever claimed to have such facts. If I have please point them out.

I It might be noted that a path of 'no plan' doesnt tend to have a pile of facts surroubnding it -- asking for facts around a 'no plan' is akin to asking for proof of a negative..

That lack of items, which many times surround these issues, is one of things why I have an opinion as such. many times the press will absolutely have an 'inside the cabal that brought down the Speakership story' -- just like those same types of stories in the press surrounded the promotion and demotion of all the Speaker wannabes in the last three weeks.

Quote:but it doesn't stop you from speaking as if you do.

I suppose that comment is equally as applicable to both of us here. I would also think the absolute lack of facts in itself is a point to look at in the issue, as noted above. Not in any way claiming that 'lack of background' is dispositive in any way, mind you. But something that I consider in my opinion on the matter. And no, I do not think I have the issue as such a 'hard fact' as you might lead above.

Quote: Your comment that nothing in his family history of politics suggests a plan of any sort is simply demonstrably false. You may not like their plans or agree with them or think they are high minded or what have you, but he clearly followed in his father's footsteps. That alone seems planned... and he raised money and sought specific seats etc etc etc... plans.

And then we can finish with the fact that his two articulated preferences for speaker... people he has voted for before... and seems to have clear reason to support again... were absolutely nominated and came to a vote. I can't prove that this was his plan but it sure is a hell of a coincidence.... and then of course throw in that the selected person seems to similarly be at least in the direction of MAGA....

So the obvious evidence that he had a plan is that the outcome went his general direction. The leadership moved 'right'.

Evidence that he DIDN'T have a plan would have been to torpedo McCarthy and then have a Democrat or a Romney/Warren type elected.

It would be incredibly odd that someone with little to no power acted with no planning and yet it seems he still got concessions from the party.

You don't have to agree with me. This is my opinion.... but you really need to stop acting as if you have some 'greater insight' into anyone but yourself.... just because you don't like the person or his politics. I don't particularly like his politics either, but that doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's doing.

My bad -- I didnt notice the 'family' in the 'family history' proffer of proof. I dont think a family history as to the issue of his having a plan *here* and *now* is really germane to anything.

Im offering no more than my opinion, Ham. I have proferred up zero factual basis -- because that usually normal 'chatter' that typically exists into background machinations doesnt seem to exist here. Just as you are offering your opinion.

Perhaps on an even as strident basis, mind you.

And might I add, there is a lot of channels out there that seemingly are placing the moniker of 'mindless bomb thrower' onto Gaetz. Far more items than channels telling this as someone having a set plan as you surmise.

You have an (strident) opinion. I have an opinion. That seems to say it all, does it not?
(This post was last modified: 10-26-2023 10:12 PM by tanqtonic.)
10-26-2023 03:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GoodOwl Offline
The 1 Hoo Knocks
*

Posts: 25,218
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 2239
I Root For: New Horizons
Location: Planiverse
Post: #984
RE: House Republicans Thread / 2022 Mid-term Elections Thread
Quote:Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC): I just want to be clear, and I think Mac Eight clarified this yesterday. This almost didn’t happen because the disgraced former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, every time someone ascended, he would knife them in the back and they couldn’t become speaker. But thank God we have now Mike Johnson, who is a strong conservative, a man of faith, and someone who’s going to work hard. And guess what? He’s not a part of the establishment. He’s not a part of one of K Street’s favorites, right?… The eight of us and others held the line, and we got us to where we are today. And this is a new direction, a new day for America…

…This thing didn’t need to last through three weeks. So the first thing that McCarthy and his allies did was prolong it and delay it and recess us and adjourn us every time they possibly could to drag this thing out and make it as painful as possible. For the eight of us who held the line and kicked McCarthy out of the speakership, that’s number one. Number two, there was a concerted and orchestrated effort at the hand of McCarthy that every time someone ascended, they got knifed in the back, including America’s favorite Republican congressman in Jim Jordan. I mean, our conference couldn’t even elect the best and favorite congressman in this country, Jim Jordan, because of what McCarthy and his allies were doing behind the scenes and orchestrating his failure.
10-26-2023 05:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #985
RE: House Republicans Thread / 2022 Mid-term Elections Thread
I was never a fan of McCarthy, whom I consider a very weak leader, like McConnell in the senate. I have no opinion of Johnson at this time, will just watch and see.

Republicans need:
1) A policy agenda of winning ideas, which they haven't had since Newt's Contract in 1994.
2) Strong leadership in the senate and HOR. I despise Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, but I admire their leadership abilities.
10-26-2023 09:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,279
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #986
RE: House Republicans Thread / 2022 Mid-term Elections Thread
(10-26-2023 02:50 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Not fear-mongering. I wasn't implying that his being named speaker is especially troublesome for supporters of gay marriage. But I will point out that it speaks to the current GOP that the fact that Emmer had voted for gay marriage in the past was considered a strike against him by many.

I AM saying that people who refer to gay people as "depraved" are people that I consider to be pretty crappy to be honest. I don't understand how one can consider oneself Christian/WWJD and say stuff like that. Like gay people have just decided one day to have homosexual relations like one decides to start wearing bow ties or to buy a Peleton. Like it's not the way that God created them from the get-go and that they had absolutely no say in the matter. Again... f*** Mike Johnson. But he's the direction of today's GOP. Good luck to everybody.

While fear mongering doesn't suit the way you have described it above, you are still suggesting that because someone has a view on something that differs from most others (I am just accepting your word on it... I don't know the guy) that this somehow reflects on the direction of the GOP. That to me is trying to instill fear. If you prefer to call it something else, that's fine... but that is precisely what I am talking about.

It only reflects on the direction of the GOP if that is WHY he was selected.... If he was selected to drive that agenda... and your own comment was that this agenda is out of touch even with the majority of Republicans.... and others who said similar things were rejected.... So why do you think it reflects the direction of the party if they rejected others and they generally don't support that agenda?? Like Biden as President, sometimes you have to take the long history of problematic comments to get the 'someone willing to follow the party script'. I mean its pretty obvious that Dems didn't select him for his faults, right? Same with Trump.

If you don't want to call it fear-mongering... okay... but you're still trying to associate an entire party (and by extension, their voters) with 'the worst' qualities of a single individual voted to some power.... even while admitting that you don't see anything in their position on the issue changing.

(10-26-2023 03:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Correct. There is *nothing* anywhere that says 'how, what, why not' that Gaetz put any iota of anything into this. I dont think I have ever claimed to have such facts. If I have please point them out.

First, you have demanded evidence from me... You're still doing it... and I've provided it. The absolute best evidence that he had a plan is that the end result clearly moved his way. We got a LESS moderate speaker... one it seems MORE in line with Goetz.... not a MORE moderate speaker.

If your belief is that he simply threw a bomb without thinking about what would happen, then (only because you have repeatedly insisted on the same of me) show proof of that. And no, a lack of proof to the contrary is not proof of a thing.

Quote:I It might be noted that a path of 'no plan' doesnt tend to have a pile of facts surroubnding it -- asking for facts around a 'no plan' is akin to asking for proof of a negative..

How convenient for you then... You can levy a charge and never have to defend it... but then you demand proof of any other opinion... and then ignore it when it is given.

Cute.


Quote:
Quote:but it doesn't stop you from speaking as if you do.

I suppose that comment is equally as applicable to both of us here.

Not really. I've clearly stated that this is my opinion and that I can't prove it... and I've clearly presented evidence that he had a plan... the reason for my belief... with the most obvious being that he wanted someone else to begin with... but didn't have the power to make that happen.... someone more 'right'... he saw an opportunity to oust the current guy and took it, and his people were nominated and someone more 'right' was installed. Ipsa Loquitur, right?

How in your mind is that not proof of at least a basic plan? He wanted more and didn't get it... he threw in a hornet's nest and got more. As I've repeatedly said.. we may or may not like his plan, but there obviously was a plan to get 'more' from the start (2022) that failed and he found a way to get more in 2023.


Quote:My bad -- I didnt notice the 'family' in the 'family history' proffer of proof. I dont think a family history as to the issue of his having a plan *here* and *now* is really germane to anything.

That's a pretty big miss... and I find it funny that you don't think someone with a history of planning in the political arena has anything to do with something this significant in the political arena. Let's just say that I'm 100% convinced that if he had similarly blown something up in his past and it had backfire on him, I am confident that you would be presenting that as evidence that he is a 'loose cannon'. The guy is clearly trying to make a name for himself. It is obvious by his demeanor and actions and has been for a good while now, despite only being in his 40's.... plus he followed his father in this arena. Proof of nothing, but certainly doesn't suggest someone who quite literally blows up his party without thinking about the repercussions.... which is essentially what you guys have claimed.

Quote:Im offering no more than my opinion, Ham. I have proferred up zero factual basis -- because that usually normal 'chatter' that typically exists into background machinations doesnt seem to exist here. Just as you are offering your opinion.

Then why are you debating my opinion with no facts to support yours, and yet demanding proof from me?

You act like we're both just presenting our opinions... yet I have only recently (and in response) put the same burden on you that you have requested of me for many posts now. You've asked... I've answered and asked in return... and you have characterized my responses to your challenges to my opinion as making me strident?

I guess in your world I should just say... Yeah, I disagree... and you would just drop it. Nothing in EITHER of our histories suggests that would ever happen... but I guess that isn't pertinent either, right?

Quote:And might I add, there is a lot of channels out there that seemingly are placing the moniker of 'mindless bomb thrower' onto Gaetz. Far more items than channels telling this as someone having a set plan as you surmise.

You have an (strident) opinion. I have an opinion. That seems to say it all, does it not?

That is just so laughable.

My opinion is only strident because you have decided I must prove it to you. You have repeatedly implied that my opinion has no evidence to support it... even now.... I mean, other than the obvious actions and the obvious result, right?? Guy just got lucky.

As to the channels out there... I'm truly shocked that democrats and establishment republicans are complaining about the guy who just pushed the party right against their will and over their objections.... or that people trying to disrupt the status quo aren't using your 'channels' to do so. I hope that sarcasm isn't wasted on you.

I'd also note that even this comment itself... that 'the channels' are on your side is an attempt by you to claim something more than just your opinion... it is an opinion that 'the channels' share, and they don't share mine. You're clearly offering that up as evidence of SOMETHING. Maybe you just need more 'channels'?
10-27-2023 11:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,112
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #987
RE: House Republicans Thread / 2022 Mid-term Elections Thread
(10-27-2023 11:06 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(10-26-2023 03:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Correct. There is *nothing* anywhere that says 'how, what, why not' that Gaetz put any iota of anything into this. I dont think I have ever claimed to have such facts. If I have please point them out.

First, you have demanded evidence from me... You're still doing it...

First -- I have asked you for evidence of a plan. Not demanded as you note.

Second -- You will note that the above isnt a 'demand' for evidence, nor even a request for 'evidence of a plan'. It simply says "I agree with you my stance has no direct proof or nor direct evidence. I have never claimed that there was, aside from a complete dearth of *any* information to support any Gaetz plan. If I am mistaken about that, please tell me where."

I am sorry if you misconstrue that above. Those requests are distinctly different and for distinctly different things.

Third --- When an opinion is denoted as 'facile' (i.e. thin, effortless, superficial, ignorant) -- why yes, I will ask that person denoting that opinion as (thin, effortless, superficial, ignorant) what they have to back up their contrary take on things. I dont think that a horrible thing to do, mind you. Nor anything to generate an animus in that ask. And, my comment that requested such backing contained none of the superfluous 'facile' comments, nor any asides whatsoever.

Quote: and I've provided it. The absolute best evidence that he had a plan is that the end result clearly moved his way. We got a LESS moderate speaker... one it seems MORE in line with Goetz.... not a MORE moderate speaker.

There is a distinct difference between a *goal* of an action and it’s outcome, and a plan of how to deal with the immediate aftermath in pursuit of that goal. A very distinct difference.

Your statement above is 'the end goal was reached, ergo there was a detailed plan for the immediate aftermath.' That doesnt sound like any evidence of a plan for the immediate aftermath, just a recitation of the end goal with or without a plan for the immediate aftermath.

Quote:If your belief is that he simply threw a bomb without thinking about what would happen, then (only because you have repeatedly insisted on the same of me) show proof of that. And no, a lack of proof to the contrary is not proof of a thing.

I told you above there are *zero* substantive facts as to a ‘no plan’, just as there are *zero* substantive facts to a plan in the immediate wake of the bomb, in this instance.

The sheer pandemonium with zero substantive action by Gaetz et al is something indicative to me.

Further, there is inherent logical fallacy to your query above — it is fundamentally logically impossible to ‘prove’ a negative. The *only* manner one can *prove* a ‘no plan’ is via express statement by Gaetz. I haven’t seen that. Have you?

Quote:
Quote:I It might be noted that a path of 'no plan' doesnt tend to have a pile of facts surroubnding it -- asking for facts around a 'no plan' is akin to asking for proof of a negative..


How convenient for you then... You can levy a charge and never have to defend it... but then you demand proof of any other opinion...

Stating my opinion is 'levying a charge'?

As for convenience -- that is simply the factual situation above. I cannot prove a negative. Most anyone cannot. But that is now what you seemingly require of me.

As for evidence of the issue -- the surroundings of the chaos lead me to believe that Gaetz had *no* plan *other* than throwing the bomb. And the very large lack of notes that have accompanied the rest of the circus seem absent and lacking in total with regard to the supposed 'Gaetz plan'. If I heard of some there, I wouldnt have the opinion that I do.

It boils down to you having an unsupported opinion, and me having an opinion based on the lack of what are typically well reported inside moves, as I noted in my last post. Which all in all is fairly unsupported in all honesty. I would note that both positions as such are 'facile' in your rendering of the subject.

I am sorry that this situation boils down to '[me] levying a charge and somehow constructing a situation that I dont have to answer'. Im merely noting the issue, and the stuff around the issue. I havent 'constructed' anything, nor do I have a personal vestment in its outcome. If you can denote credible evidence of such a plan, Ill listen. Merely reciting the success of the end goal is pretty light on evidence scale, as is family history, of that intermediate plan in my book.

Quote:and then ignore it when it is given.

No, I habent "ignored" it. I have looked at it, considered it, and found them non-persuasive.

There is a very strong difference between 'ignoring' and 'simply not giving the evidence enough credence to convince'. A very distinct difference.

And yes, your evidence of 'family history' and the (incorrect) invocation of 'res ipsa loquitor' (that is the fact of a leader and power change is ipso facto evidence of a plan beyond simply throwing the bomb) simply doesnt convince me.

That is a far cry from the 'ignore it' comment you choose to ascribe that as you do above, mind you.

I find your rationales of: a) family history, and b) they got more power as wholly unpersuasive. Much as you find mine of 'zero facts in any record' unpersuasive from your end. I am not calling you 'ignorant' or that you are 'ignoring' that which I and 93 put forward in the manner that you seem to want to label the equivalent. If you wish to find those rationales unpersuasive --- you have every right to do so. I dont understand why finding your rationales unpersuasive is deemed 'ignoring' the rationales, or exactly how someone not deeming your rationales persuasive make them ignorant.

Quote:Cute.

I would appreciate a level of non-personal asides or comments. I haven’t made any in this interaction. There are even more in this post I am responding to, as well as some in others.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:but it doesn't stop you from speaking as if you do.

I suppose that comment is equally as applicable to both of us here.

Not really. I've clearly stated that this is my opinion and that I can't prove it... and I've clearly presented evidence that he had a plan...

I have done exactly the same Ham. I’ve presented the singular fact that, contrary to every little move subsequent that detailed precisely or through other means the machinations internal to every move —- there is none as to what, or even whether, the plan by Gaetz was after his motion.

My opinion. My rationale. But it seems to really create antagonism from you.

Previously I proffered this: "You have an (strident) opinion. I have an opinion. That seems to say it all, does it not?".

Apparently it does not.

Quote: the reason for my belief... with the most obvious being that he wanted someone else to begin with... but didn't have the power to make that happen.... someone more 'right'... he saw an opportunity to oust the current guy and took it, and his people were nominated and someone more 'right' was installed. Ipsa Loquitur, right?

The term is 'res ipsa loquitor'. And it really is not applicable in this matter. Even in a colloquial sense.

Again a goal of replacement doesn’t mean at all he had any plan for the aftermath. Those are distinctly different. I think you on one hand, and 93 and I on the other, are talking about two distinctly different 'plans'.

At one level, the bomb throw was part of a plan 'to gain more power'. That I agree with. That is what I now seemingly understand as your take on this.

The level that I am speaking of, and I believe 93 is opining on, is that for the immediate aftermath of the bomb throw, there was *zero* plan by Gaetz. Just a hope that more power would ensue. I would hope you would agree with me (us) that "hop[ing]" for a result is not a well thought out plan to *achieve" those results.

That is if the 'plan' is:
Step 1: throw bomb
Step 2: doesnt matter what
Step 3: gain power

It seems pretty well underthought. And that seems to me at least to what happened. For the record: my opinion. Based on zero action in the aftermath from Gaetz, and zero reported action by Gaetz, and zero reports of *any* sort that go into the nub of what Gaetz and 7 dwarves thought out on gaining power subsequent to the bomb throw. Given the fairly in depth information that can be gleaned from a whole host of parties and events that follow -- I find that silence to be worthy of consideration.

You dont.

Since *you* decided to call the stance of 'no plan' based on no apparent evidence of a plan "facile" -- I simply asked you why you thought that. In return there was : a) they got power in the end; 2) Gaetz's family; and a few others that I didnt find to really be meaty.

Again -- you have an opinion. I have an opinion. Maybe thats that.

Quote:How in your mind is that not proof of at least a basic plan? He wanted more and didn't get it... he threw in a hornet's nest and got more. As I've repeatedly said.. we may or may not like his plan, but there obviously was a plan to get 'more' from the start (2022) that failed and he found a way to get more in 2023.

Again — the issue isn’t a generalized plan for ‘more power’. The issue is was there *any* plan for the specific time after the bomb throw. I’ll grant him kudos for gaining more power, but he (in my mind) simply threw the bomb with a generalized goal with zero plan for the immediate aftermath.


Quote:
Quote:My bad -- I didnt notice the 'family' in the 'family history' proffer of proof. I dont think a family history as to the issue of his having a plan *here* and *now* is really germane to anything.

That's a pretty big miss... and I find it funny that you don't think someone with a history of planning in the political arena has anything to do with something this significant in the political arena. Let's just say that I'm 100% convinced that if he had similarly blown something up in his past and it had backfire on him, I am confident that you would be presenting that as evidence that he is a 'loose cannon'. The guy is clearly trying to make a name for himself. It is obvious by his demeanor and actions and has been for a good while now, despite only being in his 40's.... plus he followed his father in this arena. Proof of nothing, but certainly doesn't suggest someone who quite literally blows up his party without thinking about the repercussions.... which is essentially what you guys have claimed.

Ham, it is clear that you on one side and 93 and I are talking about different aspects. Ours is that there was nonspecific plan after the bomb throw to gain more power. Yours is that the overall plan was to gain more power. Very distinctly different. And I agree with you the general plan was to gain more power. But still have an opinion that there was zero plan on how to gain power aside from simply tossing the bomb.


Quote:
Quote:Im offering no more than my opinion, Ham. I have proferred up zero factual basis -- because that usually normal 'chatter' that typically exists into background machinations doesnt seem to exist here. Just as you are offering your opinion.

Then why are you debating my opinion with no facts to support yours, and yet demanding proof from me?

You mean asking you for yours, right? And I am not the person wholly dismissing your opinion as explicitly "(thin, effortless, superficial, ignorant) ", right? So yes, when someone notes my opinion is (thin, effortless, superficial, ignorant), I would like to know their basis.

So I *asked* for yours. Notwithstanding your comment that I *demand* them. I would suggest when I explicitly call your opinions (thin, effortless, superficial, ignorant), I would not be surprised to get the same response from you for a basis.

Quote:You act like we're both just presenting our opinions... yet I have only recently (and in response) put the same burden on you that you have requested of me for many posts now. You've asked... I've answered and asked in return... and you have characterized my responses to your challenges to my opinion as making me strident?

Im not the person invoking 'facile', or 'laughable', or actually doing anything to make the issue personal Ham.

Quote:I guess in your world I should just say... Yeah, I disagree... and you would just drop it. Nothing in EITHER of our histories suggests that would ever happen... but I guess that isn't pertinent either, right?

See the above, Ham. If you want to inject 'our histories' into the current discussion, that is a 'you' action. I havent alluded to that at all, nor have I injected any type of rancor into this discussion. Nor have I made a comment about your 'methodologies' ('levying a charge while evilly constructing a situation to never be questioned.... cute.') as seemingly are important to you based on those issues being explicit in your return comment.

In fact I made that above comment about 'you having an opinion and my having an opinion, with that seems to say it all, does it not?' in an effort to short circuit that aspect wholly.

Quote:
Quote:And might I add, there is a lot of channels out there that seemingly are placing the moniker of 'mindless bomb thrower' onto Gaetz. Far more items than channels telling this as someone having a set plan as you surmise.

You have an (strident) opinion. I have an opinion. That seems to say it all, does it not?

That is just so laughable.

My opinion is only strident because you have decided I must prove it to you. You have repeatedly implied that my opinion has no evidence to support it... even now.... I mean, other than the obvious actions and the obvious result, right?? Guy just got lucky.

I dont find evidence that they got a new Speaker horribly germane to the issue if they had a plan for the immediate aftermath -- that is the 'what do you do immediately after the bomb throw and before the end result'.

I simply ask you for your facts that back your comments, after you decided to label another opinion as facile. Not demanded as you note above, not that I decided that [you] must prove it.

You have said 'they got the result they wanted'. Yes, yes they did. It is still zero evidence of any plan for the immediate aftermath, mind you. No matter how many times you repeat it, or try and invoke 'res ipsa loquitor'.

Quote:I'd also note that even this comment itself... that 'the channels' are on your side is an attempt by you to claim something more than just your opinion... it is an opinion that 'the channels' share, and they don't share mine. You're clearly offering that up as evidence of SOMETHING. Maybe you just need more 'channels'?

Im offering up the fact that the inside machinations of the GOP and its factions were absolutely reported on during the time they were in the circus tent acting like some idiot clowns. You couldnt turn your head without seeing some description of interactions -- inside supposedly even closed door events.

And those types of notes are *still* occurring. And they even occurred almost in real time as to the Democratic response to Gaetz's motion, and the machinations in the D to the events.

SO yes, in these types of event -- reporting on the inside movements is quite common. Absolutely. There was actually reporting on the motions by Gaetz at least a half day before Gaetz threw the bomb, mind you.

The fact that there is *zero* on anything that Gaetz and his 7 dwarves did between the throwing the motion bomb and the outcome does seem to be an indication on any depth of the plan they had for immediately afterwards, let alone even having a plan for the aftermath aside from getting a more amenable Speaker for them. That is the step 2, between Step 1 'throwing the bomb' and Step 3 'gaining more power'.
(This post was last modified: 10-29-2023 11:48 PM by tanqtonic.)
10-27-2023 12:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,279
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #988
RE: House Republicans Thread / 2022 Mid-term Elections Thread
(10-27-2023 12:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
Quote:and then ignore it when it is given.

No, I habent "ignored" it. I have looked at it, considered it, and found them non-persuasive.

There is a very strong difference between 'ignoring' and 'simply not giving the evidence enough credence to convince'. A very distinct difference.

And that would be true if that were what you've done.

You have repeatedly said there is 'no evidence' of my position. There absolutely IS evidence of my position. The evidence is that what he wanted before and was denied, happened as a result of his actions.

You can certainly choose to decide that for you, this is not ENOUGH evidence or is not COMPELLING evidence as you do here... but you cannot decide that it is NOT evidence... especially when you have none to support your belief nor refute mine, other than the 'chatter in your channels'.

Neither position can be factually proven... but the fact remains that his actions resulted in a move in his preferred direction and not away from him. Maybe that was pure luck... but I doubt it... and while I am certainly not remotely putting you in this position, some people won't accept that the earth is round; regardless of the amount and clarity of the evidence.... simply to say that 'compelling' is often a question of will as much as fact.
(This post was last modified: 10-30-2023 10:35 AM by Hambone10.)
10-30-2023 10:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rice93 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,325
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 48
I Root For:
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #989
RE: House Republicans Thread / 2022 Mid-term Elections Thread
(10-27-2023 11:06 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(10-26-2023 02:50 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Not fear-mongering. I wasn't implying that his being named speaker is especially troublesome for supporters of gay marriage. But I will point out that it speaks to the current GOP that the fact that Emmer had voted for gay marriage in the past was considered a strike against him by many.

I AM saying that people who refer to gay people as "depraved" are people that I consider to be pretty crappy to be honest. I don't understand how one can consider oneself Christian/WWJD and say stuff like that. Like gay people have just decided one day to have homosexual relations like one decides to start wearing bow ties or to buy a Peleton. Like it's not the way that God created them from the get-go and that they had absolutely no say in the matter. Again... f*** Mike Johnson. But he's the direction of today's GOP. Good luck to everybody.

While fear mongering doesn't suit the way you have described it above, you are still suggesting that because someone has a view on something that differs from most others (I am just accepting your word on it... I don't know the guy) that this somehow reflects on the direction of the GOP. That to me is trying to instill fear. If you prefer to call it something else, that's fine... but that is precisely what I am talking about.

It only reflects on the direction of the GOP if that is WHY he was selected.... If he was selected to drive that agenda...

Like I said, I saw at least one GOP rep interviewed about the nomination of Emmer mentioned that his previous support of gay marriage was an issue for him. I doubt he was the only GOP rep that had a similar issue. Therefore, at least to some extent Mike Johnson was elected based on his opposition of gay marriage.
(This post was last modified: 10-30-2023 01:21 PM by Rice93.)
10-30-2023 01:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,112
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #990
RE: House Republicans Thread / 2022 Mid-term Elections Thread
(10-30-2023 01:16 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(10-27-2023 11:06 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  
(10-26-2023 02:50 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Not fear-mongering. I wasn't implying that his being named speaker is especially troublesome for supporters of gay marriage. But I will point out that it speaks to the current GOP that the fact that Emmer had voted for gay marriage in the past was considered a strike against him by many.

I AM saying that people who refer to gay people as "depraved" are people that I consider to be pretty crappy to be honest. I don't understand how one can consider oneself Christian/WWJD and say stuff like that. Like gay people have just decided one day to have homosexual relations like one decides to start wearing bow ties or to buy a Peleton. Like it's not the way that God created them from the get-go and that they had absolutely no say in the matter. Again... f*** Mike Johnson. But he's the direction of today's GOP. Good luck to everybody.

While fear mongering doesn't suit the way you have described it above, you are still suggesting that because someone has a view on something that differs from most others (I am just accepting your word on it... I don't know the guy) that this somehow reflects on the direction of the GOP. That to me is trying to instill fear. If you prefer to call it something else, that's fine... but that is precisely what I am talking about.

It only reflects on the direction of the GOP if that is WHY he was selected.... If he was selected to drive that agenda...

Like I said, I saw at least one GOP rep interviewed about the nomination of Emmer mentioned that his previous support of gay marriage was an issue for him. I doubt he was the only GOP rep that had a similar issue. Therefore, at least to some extent Mike Johnson was elected based on his opposition of gay marriage.

Johnson's position apparently isnt limited to gay marriage.
10-30-2023 01:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.