Matt Gaetz: Biden Impeachment Must Be First Priority For GOP
By: Alex Griffing (Mediaite)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) told Steve Bannon on his War Room podcast on Monday that if the Republican Party retakes control of the House impeaching President Joe Biden will be their top priority.
"If we don't engage in impeachment inquiries to get the documents and the testimony and the information we need, then I believe that our voters will feel betrayed and that likely, that could be the biggest win the Democrats could hope for in 2024, when it really matters to investigate them and to hold them accountable," Gaetz told Bannon.
"And we can do that without the Senate and without the White House. And that's why it should be investigations first, policy, bill making to support the lobbyists and the PACs as a far, far diminished priority," Gaetz concluded.
Gaetz says if Republicans don't immediately begin impeachment of Biden and Cabinet officials if they get the majority "our voters will feel betrayed" heading into 2024, "and that's why it should be investigations first, and policy as a far, far diminished priority." pic.twitter.com/vCdKGvxnLN
— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) September 26, 2022
Gaetz's comments back up Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), who toldChuck Todd on Meet the Press Sunday that she believed her party would vote to impeach President Biden if they retake the House.
"Do you expect an impeachment vote against President Biden if Republicans take over the House?" Todd asked Mace.
"I believe there's a lot of pressure on Republicans to have that vote," Mace replied. "To put that legislation forward and to have that vote. I think that is something that some folks are considering."
Notably, neither Gaetz nor Mace specifically noted on what grounds they or other Republicans believe Biden should be impeached.
Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com
Filed Under: Joe BidenMatt GaetzSteve Bannon Previous PostNext Post Previous PostNext Post
Tags
Who is online
61 visitors
For not protecting America's southern border and ignoring immigration laws..
For weaponizing the DOJ to intimidate American parents, FBI whistleblowers and political opponents.
For holding meetings to pressure tech giants like Twitter and Facebook to censor the speech of political opponents.
For overstepping executive authority on cancelling student loans.
It's time for the gander to get impeached.
But according to Trump, presidents can do whatever they want and when he said that, not one republican in government said a word. But NOW it's not ok? Sorry Vic but that's a two way street.
Ridiculous. None of these "allegations" comes close to Trump trying to extort the president of another country into helping Trump win re-election.
It's time to move on. We have an election coming. How will democrats solve the problems they caused within 4 weeks?
WTELF did you expect?
What are the charges?
"At that point, what does it really matter"......
In other words there are no believable charges.
There are all kinds of easily provable "charges". The question is whether or not they rise to the constitutional definitions for impeachment.
But if you're going to impeach one president for not actually withholding aid to a foreign country, then the precedent is now established that pretty much anything goes.
Trump was more than willing and ready to withhold the aid to Ukraine.
They have smoking gun evidence of Trump trying to extort Zelensky. The impeachment failed only because Republicans in the Senate preposterously decided that the "crime" didnt rise to the level of an impeachable offense.
It failed because it was little more than Pelosi placating the hysterical left, and the constitution was written by wise men.
The point remains, although it is apparently eternally lost on Democrats, that when you use "nuclear options" for partisan political gain, you're a complete moron if you don't expect them to be used against you.
And that is where the weakness in your comment resides. Donald Trump abused himself of the office of the president (with the indulgences, plural, of conservative enablers) so much so that he divided your party into pejorative name-callings such as: "RINOs" (projection by MAGA-ites) and "Never Trumpers."
Half of conservatives 'declare' Trump is not a real conservative, but yet he sits in the seat of (real) conservative power and the party is atrophied because of him and—enablers who won't turn him loose/down/or let him get what he rightly deserves.
BTW, if you ain't 'dialed-in' to Trump; that man is not dialed into you (all). It's TRUMP all the time 'mirrored' in his head! Perhaps "MAGA" likes it that way too.
You shouldn't view masturbation as self abuse but as self pleasure.
The Constitution states clearly that a president may be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors". At the end of the day, they didn't even charge him with an actual crime.
Which....given the man in question... seems like it should not have been hard to find.
And yet... the charges were so feeble that you couldn't even get the RINOs on board.
Mindnumbing ignorant comment. And yet you continue in giving. . . . We're done here.
What can I say? It is evidentially true that a two-handed clap can't execute with one hand! This country of ours is reaping the bounty of its own ignorance. Tear down what you have-let it go to 'hit and imagine that it will be conservative in the end? That's idiocy. This country will go forward; will progress; if it takes staggering or zig-zagging to accomplish it. Of course, today's 'crop' of fools will die out to be replaced by what exactly only time can tell!
Oh, and define "RINO" in MAGA-land.
I had thought that he would want to secure the borders but it seems the Republicans don't have anything to run on if that happens.
The ECONOMY
Energy (drilling)
Crime
Women's rights
Free Speech
CRT
Grooming
Spending
Just to name a few.
So there's a long list of grievances. But the spiteful punishing of President Biden for pummeling your boy in a fair election is your first priority?
WTF are you talking about? The election is over, liberals want to keep it in the news, everyone else has moved on to correcting the cluster fuck that's in the white house.
The next Congress will almost certainly be more conspiracy addled and truth denying than the current one is. There are over 100 election deniers running for seats in the House of Representatives and 95% of them are expected to win because they are in overwhelmingly red districts.
In other words, you dont know what you are talking about.
JR there are Democrat election deniers "IN" Congress right now, what's your point.
Will we now have a presidential impeachment after every change in House majority party?
Why not....
But they first need to investigate Hunter to discover what crimes this family has committed
You want them to impeach Hunter???
Other than abuse of the CotUS and ongoing partisan power plays that serve to promote divisiveness?
Biden has certainly committed impeachable offenses with executive actions that he knows violate the Constitution in order to bribe voters. (the rent eviction moratorium, the student loan debacle). Of course it won't go anywhere in the Senate, but a message would be sent to the President to respect the separation of powers. But as a futile act, its probably not worth the effort.
List them.
List them.
I listed two. Either one is grounds enough. More would be overkill
So helping folk who need it is now an impeachable offense?
You listed shit.
Unless those folk are multi-millionaires, yes, according to republican bylaws.
Good point. I forgot the Constitutional clause that allows the President to do what ever he wants so long as he frames it as "helping people in need."
“Then, I have an Article II, where I have to the right to do whatever I want as president.” - Donald Trump
Deflection noted........................
very telling you cite Trump as an expert.
Paying off rich people's student loans with poor people's tax dollars is not actually helping the people who need it.
What deflection? I just noted a former president agreeing with what Sean stated.
Well I needed to cite someone that you'd accept.
[deleted]
If they are paying taxes they sure as hell are..............
Somebody, obviously hasn't done the appropriate research.
Then where do you think the money for this is coming from? AOC's "You just pay them" bullshit? LMAO
Poor people can't afford college, with or without student loans
Nope. Not good enough.
The separation of powers is violated all the time. The remedy is not impeachment.
Intentionally violating his oath of office is absolutely grounds for impeachment.
What makes you think he intentionally violated his oath of office? All presidents make EOs that they know could be found unconstitutional. These things are always arguable and sometimes we get new law out of it when a court decides.
Take the eviction moratorium. He's at least nominally a lawyer so when the Supreme Court issues a decision with 5 votes saying the President doesn't have the power to issue a moratorium, then Biden can't claim confusion or doubt about whether he has the power to issue that moratorium. And to go ahead and issue another executive order in defiance of the Court's ruling while admitting he just wanted to game the system is the very definition of acting in bad faith.
And I suppose all of donald's 220 EO's were all legal and above board. Or Bush's 291, or Reagan's 381...
Here is a list of the previous president's actions, which you all seem to have no problem with...
pose all of donald's 220 EO's were all legal and above board. Or Bush's 291, or Reagan's 381.
Find me one example where the Court said one of those Presidents didn't have the power to order an action, and one of those Presidents went ahead and did it a few days later.
And here I thought you all didn't want the courts to legislate...
If you are going to deflect, put a little effort into it. This has nothing to do with "Court's legislating"
So you have one instance of Biden writing an EO that the SC didn't like.
Sort of a small file there...
If this was seriously the standard, every federal or state legislator or executive who ever passed a law that got overturned would be in jail or removed from office. And besides, if it goes to court, he might win. The recent abortion decision is a shining example of that.
A state made a law that was - on its face - unconstitutional. No legislators went to jail or lost their positions, and the governor was not impeached. Instead, they rode the appeal train all the way to the Supreme Court and won, by getting the case law changed.
Impeachment is supposed to be for high crimes and misdemeanors. Nothing I have seen here comes close to that.
For what???
For being a democrat
You're right. My bad.
Impeach away, kids!
What a silly country we are becoming.
SSDD. We would be better served by 'impeaching' both political parties and removing them from government. This is just more red meat for meatheads.
BTW, Biden could be impeached for being too old. That would put Kamala Harris in charge and allow Democrats to appoint a Vice President (as Nixon did). I'm not sure who would be the winners and losers in that situation.
That's an easy answer. The American public. Of course reversing the parties would provide the same answer, the same loser in the situation.
“Biden could be impeached for being too old…”
Really, nerm? Really?
Where does the 25th allow for the impeachment of a PotUS based upon age as the sole factor?
A PotUS can be impeached for any stupid reason (e.g. because the opposing party does not like him) but that would be a very feeble response if you offer it. I am looking for where you find the 25th suggests age alone is suitable grounds for impeachment.
Evidently, without cause, you support ageism. Once again leave bigotry and its cousin-"unfounded charges" to a conservative to put flesh on it. For all that is decent, I am left wondering WHY independents and others continue to put conservatives in seats of power where they can mock, demonize, destroy, and subjugate the aforementioned voting populaces.
I'm looking for where the 25th Amendment addresses impeachment at all.
Most independents that I know are socially liberal, fiscally responsible centrists, there are also some libertarians that consider themselves as independents. Historically, they may agree with Repubs on the economy and national security, and with the Dems on social issues.
Independents put Biden in the WH. Mondale was the last presidential candidate to lose independants by a margin as wide as Trump's. Currently, independents have an unfavorable view of both Parties.
Independants mtend do be skeptical of political messaging and spin, and negative ads. They also like bipartisanship and getting things done, Repubs might lose in the mid-terms because of this.
If Repubs win, it will likely be on the economy as independents usually v prioritize the economy and remain concerned by national debt. Inflation will likely be their top concern in 2022.
While many here on NT are politically polarized, but a majority of American voters consider themselves somewhere in between the two parties. These are the independents, centrists and moderates who still may be registered with one party, but at times vote for the other. Independents are a diverse group.
Doesn't just addresses removal from office due to incapacitation and inability to fulfill the duties of the office due to incompetence and a vote by enough cabinet members to exercise it.
Closer with every day that passes..............................
Indeed.
Yeah. But that's different from "high crimes and misdemeanors", isn't it?
For the most part I think this is a good description of independents.
My description is that an independent is one who does not simply accept a particular party's position on an issue. Thus it is not a requirement for an independent to be detached from all parties. There are D and R independents.
Ultimately, an independent —in my view— is one who objectively considers facts, applies reason and draws a conclusion regardless of what one or any party pushes. In result, an independent will sometimes align with the Ds on an issue, sometimes with the GoP and sometimes with neither.
In contrast, a partisan will typically hold whatever position is held by their party (or preferred faction of their party).
And that is not strictly dependent upon age. A 40 year old PotUS could be unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office due to a stroke.
There is no point attempting to shore up Nerm's claim; Nerm is wrong. Best to take the side where truth is standing.
Yep I was just helping you out. 25th can't be used for impeachment.
I know. He said he was trying to find it and I basically said "It isn't in there that's why". [deleted]
Ah. Well... if I were smarter I would have spotted that.
Much obliged.
Independents are, by inclination, people who want to thoroughly examine , and often credit, "both sides" of the story. In normal times that would be fine, but we are not in normal times. Far from it.
In todays atmosphere "independents" enable the anti-democracy pro Trumpist , MAGA crowd , to claim legitimacy. If "both sides" are at fault, MAGA is not at fault.
Both sides cannot be equally at fault for a problem or series of problems. The more we as a society try to put it on both sides, the longer it will take to get rid of MAGA.
You disagree with his claim but voted it up @6.2.1??
You present this as if independents want to ensure we spread credit evenly. That is nonsense. If the Ds are wrong on an issue and the GoP is right, then that is the end of it. And vice-versa of course. And if they are both right or both wrong then the chips fall as they will.
Independents do not deal with 'both sides' per your special meaning of the phrase, but rather neither side. The party is irrelevant. The facts (and reason) is what matters.
Independent does NOT mean "both sides are equally at fault for a problem".
I try to be Independent, I know some people will laugh at that, yet I just cannot stomach what the GOP has become.
Tig, are Democrats and Republicans equally responsible for the plague of "Trumpism" ? Are both sides responsible for Jan 6? Are both sides responsible for Trump lying to the American public 30,000 times?
The country has to put all this nonsense behind us, and it will always be difficult to do that when some people spend so much time saying both sides are bad, or both sides are wrong. This is not the time for that. That time will come again, but not now.
Did you not read a single word of what I wrote? My point was that independents do not simply spread fault equally. So why would you ask me if both Ds and Rs are equally responsible for Trumpism??? The answer is obviously 'no'. Trumpism is a MAGA GoP manifestation.
John, you clearly are not paying attention to what I am writing (or have written for that matter). Answers: of course not in both cases.
Now think this through. If I state that independents make decisions regardless of party positions, how does that translate (in your mind) into "independents spread fault equally between the two major parties"?
I fear that it is all too common on social media when people try to convey a point that
sounds perfectly logical in their head, the written message loses its meaning when,
rushing to respond, we sometimes leave out punctuation and proof reading.
And they, republicans, should lose when they promise to tie/bind/sink two years of our (the citizenry: young/middle-aged/senior) our futures into political vindictive under a phony guise of whataboutisms. If republicans are caught in the same or similar 'netting' as they SAY democrats are in: who/where is the 'better politician?
I could vote for a republican or conservative in the future. But not for any lily-livered, lying, abusive, dismissive of minorities, individual or group of individuals. True recognition of all in our society holding value and worth needs to forth from the republican party. Exclusion won't get my vote.
I don’t know what you mean.
Caution! Partisan 'hackery' at work!
How so?
I understand your meaning and actions on account of this rationale. One party is trying to make the country work for everybody, the opposing side is 'dumping' on the citizenry it cares nothing about! Republicans exclude people, it's true and its plain to see. Republicans are a party of 'bland' ideas that can not satisfy the nation as a whole ever! Worse: Republicans are content to see others suffer for a lifetime as par for the course of the 'others' humanity.
Ender, you are right and fair to be repulsed by such exclusionary politics.
And yes, unfortunately, the nation wastes untold and unidentifiable amounts of its wealth and capability on defeating repeating bad ideas which materialize out of whole cloth as wedge issues meant to divide voters into 'sorry' camps against the expressed meaning of "E Plurbus Unum."
If republicans/MAGA/conservatives don't want to "be best" and out-class democrats with meaningful stewardship of government office-holding for the whole of the citizenry or at least 99 percent of it. . . why bother campaigning to be mediocre and political retreads? What good can come of another round of 'mess' for the "American people"?!
This is what good money thrown after bad money will look like. Mind-dead politicians and their dummy games at the cost of us all!
Many nations in this world wish they had the stability across the board that the United States has (clearly we have more peace than we deserve even) and yet here we are trying our damnedest to break out civil war (2)!
Go figure!
Woe to the fools in leadership who one day may FEAR and LOATHE the duties and responsibilities of leading this country, thus no one will seek to take the office!
Then what?!
The American Presidency: The most UNDESIRABLE position in the United States.
The evidence is pretty overwhelming at this point that the "mind-dead" ones are not the politicians.
I'm sorry. What do you mean?
Well... who's the bigger fool... the fool in office or the fools who elected him?
Sees the sun going down
And the eyes in his head
See the world spinning round
Both are 'bigger' fools : (Context.)
Matthew 23: 19 You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes it sacred? 20 So then, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21 And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the One who dwells in it. 22 And he who swears by heaven swears by God’s throne and by the One who sits on it.
Therefore, those who 'swear' by the fool in office can be par and parcel fools who knowing this elected such a one for such a monumental task!
What is Problem Politics?
Problem politics is the uncontrollable urge to be a dutiful partisan despite negative consequences in a person’s life.
Political addiction can contribute to poor mental and physical health, loss of money, and problems with family, friends and co-workers.
They should impeach Biden for transporting minors over state lines and paying them for sex. Oh, wait … that was the creepy loser guy who is setting priorities for the GOP.
Willing to settle,
forsaking any standards…
You gets what you Gaetz.
So in other words, the republicans don't have any legislative plans so they are going to use the time on investigations...
Ahh,,, brings me back to the Obama years...
Undoubtedly you will not agree with their plans, but they do have some.
obstacles to their success. Hardworking taxpayers should be valued, not punished.
caused violence in our communities. Public safety is a necessity, not a privilege.
respect for dedicated parents and teachers. Our future depends on it.
finally serve the needs of the people. We can no longer afford business as usual.
Deregulation is never a good thing...
So they want to again try to militarize the police?
The way they are attacking schools and banning books I don't see education getting better, I see it getting worse...
When have republicans, or any politician been accountable? Sounds like platitudes to me...
The whole platform is nothing.
I did say you weren't going to agree.
But we have established that they do indeed have plans.
Those proposals sound good...but how do you implement them? I can see deregulation to an extent...sometimes regulations are too restrictive. But you can't remove all of them. People still require safety when it comes to products and services
That is not plans, it is talk...
I can see it to a small extent. Like getting rid of double laws that basically do the same thing and stream line the process, yet I have a feeling that the repubs deregulation is letting corporations pollute and do what they want while saying it will create jobs...
If the history of either party serves as any guide, you pass a few ineffective laws with pretty damaging unintended consequences, hold a press conference, and declare victory.
Then you blame the unintended consequences on something and someone entirely unrelated to the mess you've made.
That seems to be the standard game plan.
Yet it hasn't kept you from objecting to the plans you think they have as you project your dystopian nightmare.
What the hell are you talking about?
You're claiming they don't have plans, then you're talking about their plans to "militarize the police" and "ban books" and other melodramatic nonsense.
Yeah...that doesn't work for me
Republicans these days have the mindset of libertarians. Not the cool dope smoking ones but the ones who hate all regulations. They don't care if their products and services injure or kill someone. They don't think proactively. Better to ask forgiveness than ask for permission
Don't some of them want to ban books?
No. Absolutely nobody is trying to ban books. That's just more melodrama.
What they want to do is decide which books will be included in school libraries, which is absolutely NOT remotely the same thing.
In the days before we as a nation went completely insane, we understood basic, common sense ideas like this.
We weren't trying to ban Playboy Magazine, but we weren't putting it in the elementary school library, either. We recognized that there is no universe where a public school should be supplying 50 Shades of Gray to a 12-year-old, but that didn't mean we wanted it outlawed.
There are no books on Laplace transforms or Kepler's Law for Tetrahedral Volume in high school libraries. Those are very advanced ideas we don't teach in public high schools.... kinda like CRT. If a HS student is smart enough to understand any of that, they have terabytes of information at their fingertips.
Lots of schools don't teach Latin. Or Mandarin. Or Norse poetry. Or non-Euclidian Geometry. That doesn't mean any of it is banned. What nonsense.
When you take books that were previously in a school library, and remove them, you are in effect banning those books from the students at that school , in the classroom or school setting. Could the student then run out and buy the book? I suppose so, but that is hardly the point. The school boards want to prevent the students from reading them.
Many here love their melodrama as much as their hyperbole.
pardon the fuck out of me
Sorry, when you remove a book from the student library , or from a required reading list, you are banning that book in that school. End of story.
pay no attention to them
Are you in favor of pulling To Kill a Mockingbird, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Of Mice and Men, The Cay and Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry, and SkippyJon Jones books?
You're just not. That's idiotic. If you choose to have students read Macbeth instead of Julius Caesar, have you banned the latter?
You do realize libraries are finite spaces, yes? They're not actually Mary Poppins' bag, capable of containing infinite volumes.
Are either Macbeth or Julius Caesar on lists of books to be removed?
If To Kill A Mockingbird was in the school library , and now its not, and it was on a list, its been banned. I'm not going banter about common sense with you.
Probably unnecessary advice as one who writes, "pardon the fuck out of me" probably isn't paying attention. Just a guess since I don't really understand what that expression really means, how does one pardon the fuck out of someone else. Does that mean that they should no longer fuck?
I don't. Believe me. I have 1/2 of them on ignore
Wise choose, only pick the battles that you have a chance to win.
I've already won.
Why dont you spend more time addressing the topics and less time critiquing other members?
You're one of the champions of the world JR:
You've mistaken critique for celebration.
You've substituted trolling for both of them.
It hasn't and that's utterly asinine. If a kid has a copy in their backpack, is it going to be seized? No? Of course not. So "banned" is an idiotic description.
Wise move. Always play to your strengths.
And they won't do "dick" because when in the minority House, democrats will fight them endlessly to not allow subjugation of liberals and minorities—girls and women included.
Define "Americans," please.
You're quick and feel compelled to label, why is that?
yada yada yada. If a book was in the school library and its been removed because it was put on a prohibited list, its been banned, period.
For me personally, that would be American citizens. While I look very fondly on most non-citizen residents, they're not technically "Americans" yet, although I hope they will choose to become so.
But that's just me personally. You realize I was quoting the "commitment to America" thing the Republicans released the other day, yes?
Moronic leftist claptrap.
Please understand I will be rooting for them all the way.
I realize you think they are on some sort of moral crusade to protect whoever. That's fine. The reality is that the more they can interfere, the better the economy is likely to get.
Gridlock is good.
Since you are still online, care to answer the question in 12.1.27.?
Nonsense? Do you not see people banning books, targeting gay people at schools...
If you cannot see that one is blind.
And they have tried to militarize the police before.
Saying we want better protection against crime means what exactly?
Perhaps less victimization, but that’s just a guess.
It is all just a guess is my point. It is no plan just platitudes.
I dont know whats wrong with you. I assume marijuana is banned from schools. That doesnt mean some kid couldnt sneak some in. Its still banned. The fact that a student can carry their own copy of a book in their backpack doesnt mean the book isnt banned by that school.
I don't understand.
Their plan to reduce crime is no plan. They are only saying they can do it for votes.
Complete.
Nobody. Is. Banning. Books. It's just exceedingly obvious.
How did we arrive at such a ridiculously melodramatic definition of the word "banned"?
Can you still buy the damned thing on Amazon? Then it's not banned. Can you still carry it to school in your backpack? Not banned. Read it on your lunch break? Not banned. Loan/give it to your friend? Not banned. Talk about it in public places? Not banned.
Saying books are "banned" is like those really stupid people who say "we're literally living in the Handmaid's Tale", despite their lives bearing no resemblance whatsoever to the Handmaid's Tale.
Even if a local school board wanted to ban a book, they can't. They don't have the authority to do so.
The very premise is stupid on a galactic level.
If by "blind", you mean "went to schools where they taught the actual meaning of words and made you learn math", then yeah, OK.
Do tell.
What in the world...If a school board wanted to ban a book they couldn't?
Then who is removing books?
You can play the game of people banning books as melodramatic all you want.
You are either denying truth or trying to say well, it isn't that bad...
So if school boards have no authority to do so, why are we talking about this? Why do some schools get presented with a ban list they have to go over...
Talk about burying head in sand while claiming others are blind.
I'm well educated and have common sense.
Thank you for making my point.
If a kid is caught with marijuana in school, it gets confiscated. Because it's banned. Books do not get confiscated. Because they're not banned. See how easy this is?
I've lost interest in your comments on this topic.
The counterpart concept to your point about confiscating pot is that the student cannot obtain the book from the school library.
If a book that was in the school library and now is not, because it was put on a removal list, what happened to it? Bad luck?
[deleted]
Correct.
Removing a book is not banning it. I'm not exactly sure how we're still struggling on that idea.
In every school library in America, there are literally tens of millions of books that could be there but are not. Either the library staff is unfamiliar, or they deemed the book not to be age-appropriate, or they recognized that the content is not pertinent to the curriculum, or they didn't think there would be sufficient interest, or the content is generally inappropriate for a public school, or any number of other reasons.
None of those books have been "banned".
No...it's the people claiming they're banned who are melodramatic. It's not Germany in 1938, no matter how many Chicken Littles scream about the sky falling.
No. I'm actually telling you the truth. I'm telling you that if you think a book that is readily available almost everywhere is 'banned', you don't have any clue what "banned" really looks like.
Tell you what.. when Buzz logs on later, ask him what "banned" really looks like. Be sure to put a youtube video in the post.
Keep just playing word games. fine with me.
If a book sits in the school library for 10 years and nobody checks it out in that entire time, so the library staff removes it...has it been "banned"?
If a school district decides to change the 8th grade curriculum to focus on American literature instead of English literature, so the library replaces Shakespeare, Coleridge, and Tennyson with Hawthorne, Thoreau and Twain... has Hamlet been banned?
If a HS librarian mistakenly orders a copy of Elementary Principles of Non-Euclidian Geometry instead of Elementary Principles of Euclidian Geometry, so they remove the book...have we banned spheres?
No. Nobody has banned anything. We've made intelligent decisions about putting the most appropriate materials in the hands of students.
We're playing those mind games together
Pushing the barriers planting seeds
Playing the mind guerrilla
Chanting the Mantra peace on earth
We all been playing those mind games forever
Some kinda druid dudes lifting the veil
Doing the mind guerrilla
Some call it magic the search for the grail
Words actually have meaning. Not actually sorry if you find that inconvenient.
Since MAGA conservatives are smart enough to know the difference between inclusion and exclusion; between selection and rejection; between acceptance and denial; between obfuscation and clarification, then it is evidently clear the same folks know what is the difference between sanctioning and banning.
Also, mealy-mouthedness is a thing deployed by some as a means to get discussion 'mileage' from others.
The first time I ticketed it I forgot to use the word "delete" in purple print.
So I went through the procedure again. I didnt know it would result in two separate tickets. I'm sure Perrie will fix it for you.
Of course it is banned and MAGA knows it. If the books are placed back on school shelves: 'Heads will roll.' Individuals will be penalized. Obstructionists are here talking trash for trash-sake!
Gridlock is a better tool than cooperative government? I get the concept of Proverbs 27:17 "Iron sharpens iron , So one man sharpens another." It is a positive concept where as one thing makes another thing better. Here is another way of looking at this:
Proverbs 27:10 ". . . .Better is a neighbor who is near than a brother far away."
That is, we can do nice things in concert and cooperation and spare ourselves the losses of desperate and raw political warfare and sabatage.
No, I did not take time to look at the link, but went from what was available in the comment. I could discern it was republican-styled, nevertheless. Specifically, I am aware that republicans and MAGA conservatives do not see all "Americans" the same. Which is why I asked for a definition.
Almost always, yes. Look at the data.
The government is best which governs least.
I wouldn't worry too much about it. They're not going to be able to accomplish anything anyway.
I have never considered adversarial behavior as more conducive to good order and discipline than cooperative. I do like government that operates least too. Then again, I am a minority; I have some real-world issues/problems/dilemmas that are not experienced or perceived by members of what remains as our nation's majority. (Just kidding with that last 'snark'- our nation's majority will stand for the duration of my lifetime.)
Also, I have some issues with a conservative majority that 'lives' to not see LGBTQ families and friends as decent people or deserving of social status.
Let me ask you something: Why do conservative hate and deny cooperation with liberals?
This problem goes deeper socially and psychologically than party economic choices.
Those are actually both very valid points. And unless you see yourself in the grave within 15 years or so, you'll see the emergence of a new (Hispanic) majority.
I don't know that I would agree about "hate".
There is a definite problem surrounding the ideas of reason and accountability.
I think there exists an observable pattern of liberal people fervently demanding the implementation of some law or practice to which they have developed a visceral emotional attachment.... but clearly don't understand, and then becoming abusive when they don't get their way. Both reason and accountability are thrown to the wind. Never mind that this thing they want costs trillions of dollars or that there is zero chance it will do what they want to believe it will. If you don't support what they support, you are personally attacked and labeled a racist/misogynist/greedy bastard/inbred redneck or whatever other terrible thing they're thinking of at the moment.
We see this pattern on healthcare, taxation, the environment, and many other topics.
There is also an observable pattern where liberal people use adherence to liberal doctrine as the basis for their moral code. People who say nice liberal things are deemed to be good people, regardless of how many times they riot, how many homes and businesses they burn, or whatever else they say or do. Any collective activity of liberals is defended as "peaceful", no matter what they set on fire or how much glass they break.
Those of us who have raised children recognize this kind of behavior from when our kids were early teenagers.
So there is objection to the lack of reason, objection to the lack of accountability, and objection to the tantrums.
There is definitely an observable pattern of the so-called "conservatives" fervently demanding the implementation of some law or practice to which they have developed an emotional practice, sometimes accompanied by great violence. A prime example would be abortion where the anti-choice forces resort to threats and intimidation, the bombing of abortion clinics and the murders of a number of doctors. Another example is the January 6th insurrection. The rise of the fascist militias, the frequent attempts by the "conservatives" to intimidate and shout down school board members and their nationwide campaign of voter suppression are other examples.
There is a clear, long-established pattern of so-called "conservatives" using adherence to reactionary doctrines as the basis for their moral code. Anyone who doesn't agree with them is denounced as "immoral" or "groomers, or whatever the current propagandistic trend is among the right wing. Furthermore, they have no compunctions about engaging in deception in support of the most pernicious and violent of their ideological cohorts. Again referring to one of the most recent examples is their claim that the January 6th insurrection was a "normal tourist day at the Capitol" and "ordinary political discourse".
The claim that "[a]ny collective activity of liberals is defended as "peaceful", no matter what they set on fire or how much glass they break" is, of course, completely unsubstantiated and absurd.
This link is just one of many that documents the approval of violence and the intimidatory tactics prevalent among the right wing:
I think "great violence" may be hyperbole, and I'm not sure what "developed an emotional practice" is, but they absolutely do tend to demand laws and practices that make no sense.. which would be yet another reason why the government is best which governs least.
Gridlock is our friend.
The data just doesn't work in your favor here. Rioting is overwhelmingly a liberal domain. They dominate that in every measurable category. They riot more often, they have larger groups, and they destroy far more property. It would take conservatives decades to catch up from the summer of 2020 alone.
The pattern is actually conservatives adhering to evangelical Christian doctrine. I'm not sure how anybody could possibly have missed that unless they've lived in a fallout shelter since some nuclear false alarm in 1978.
That's hilarious. And really sorta pathetic. Like the arguments my kids made when they were 12.
Oh...BTW.... Burning businesses to the ground is now considered "peaceful" if you're liberal.
Oh look. You found pro-liberal stuff on the internet. Who saw that coming? *eyeroll*
What is truly pathetic is your unsubstantiated allegation of liberal "rioting". Are you referring to all of those riots by the grandmothers in the League of Women Voters, or the ACLU, or Common Cause?
Undoubtedly, your kids at 12 made better arguments than you do.
Gun proliferation, voter suppression and submission to the will of an authoritarian leader are evangelical Christian doctrine? Well, yes, they are among the reactionaries in America today.
Do you have a source for your statement? May we have it?
I see a great amount of projection ("Me-Me-Me") in this paragraph. Conservatives receive or fight for what they want with as much passion as liberals-thus we all are in a 'ying-yang' state of political devolution (which is now in its worse stage again). Asking today's society to exist with permanent allegiances to eighteen century (whiteness) doctrines and ideology is fatalism. The nation has/is definitely moving on. As you 'detail' in your comment.
The time is definitely coming for a more politically cooperative nation than ever before. Instead what we see are the last 'throbs' of aggressive political acts by a political party in denial of its own virtues and spoken values. Those values now casted aside for a set of political brass-knuckles.
Our mutually shared society can not go back into its 'womb.'
As you often allude to children and "child's play" in your comment, consider this: Conservatives were never the only 'adults' in our nation and no, you can't keep holding back progress with conservative political will. Change has found the United States; for good or 'ill' it demands we deal with the vexing issues of our time—issues the eighteenth century did not have to stare-down but are for us as a nation to process through.
This is another 'grow-up' moment for the nation as a whole.
Classic.
You got your feelings hurt over somebody saying things about your Cult of Liberal so you are trying to pretend $2 billion worth of property damage didn't happen.
Thank you for making my point.
You need to explain this. What does hating, demonizing, and subjugating a corresponding political party have to do with love, compassion, and peace (between equals)?
You still haven't substantiated your claim of liberal "rioting", because you can't. Just empty words, no facts, as is typical from your Cult of Reactionaries.
The point is that your argument is an Epic Fail.
Surely you don't consider BLM a conservative organization, do you? I would consider them as having a liberal orientation.
Rioters do not reflect mainstream liberal thinking or organizations. On the other hand, a Republican member of the House of Representatives handed out an award to an insurrectionist.
You didn't answer the question. Would you consider Black Lives Matters a conservative organization? Or would you consider them to have a liberal orientation?
You went offline and never answered. Oh well. From what I can read, BLM considers themselves a liberal leaning organization. And for the past couple of years we've had a lot of riots with parts of cities burned down, billions of dollars of damages. And these riots were filled with people who where there because of BLM.
So by your statement, I guess you would have to say that BLM is not in mainstream liberal thinking.
TBF, it will probably take a bit longer nationally, but Hispanics are already the largest ethnic group in Texas, New Mexico, California and several other states.
The mathematical trends are very clear. Unless something astonishing happens, the transition nationwide is inevitable.
Certainly. But you didn't ask me about conservatives. You specifically asked me about liberals.
The explanation is that those things are your feelings you have developed by seeing the world around you through a very biased lens.
Awww. Look at you desperately clinging to nonsense.
Are you trying to have us believe those were conservatives burning everything down?
“Or would you consider them to have a liberal orientation? “
If social justice is only a liberal concern, then yes.
It would seem a ensuring a level playing field in our judicial, educational, and employment practices should be welcomed and encouraged across all political spectrums.
Equal opportunity? You bet, all for it.
But BLM activists and leaders were also involved in the riots of the past couple of years which resulted in people's deaths by rioters as well as billions of dollars of destruction when parts of cities were burned down. By the definition given in 12.1.90,
BLM just doesn't fit with mainstream liberal thinking.
No, I am pretty sure conservatives have been playing 'down and dirty' with liberals for some time now. After all, returning to a former state of national existence instead of progressing to an era of national existence driven by the times we inhabit is a conservative mantra. Conservatives wish for control over the freedoms and liberties of liberals, thus the condescending language and 'foisted upon' liberals battles for who can control what/where/when/how we operate our lives. You would rather we live as conservative as you and we can not practically do it. Liberals can live with conservatives peacefully. Conservatives can not exist peacefully with liberals without threatenings, blockings, lies, deceit, and self-righteous dictates they insist be in place in liberal households.
Instead of accepting liberals for what we are as we are willing to accept you all as you are; the conservative 'push' is to name-call, diminish, patronize, and marginalize the opposition: even going so far as to signal a civil war (split!) where violence is its own solution.
Again, that wording comes out of your bias. If you were talking about liberals, you would use completely different verbiage to describe the same concept. You might say "playing hardball", or "standing their ground", or "being tough".
But you come to the conversation already convinced that these people you've never met hate you and want to control you.
Who are you kidding? You can't get through two posts without ranting about how evil conservatives are. There are zero things about these people that you are willing to accept. That is complete nonsense.
Yes, I have work to do.
In response to your question, freedom, liberty and equality are liberal policies. Inasmuch as an organization embraces those positions, that would indicate adherence to liberal thinking.
If, as I have read, certain leaders of the BLM organization may have engaged in fraud, corruption and self-dealing, those are, of course, the hallmarks of a conservative organization, which presents an interesting conundrum in providing a response to a literal reading of your question.
As for those who advocate violence, recent polling data shows that significant percentages of Republicans believe violence is supportable in furtherance of their political goals.
The blatant and obvious desperation is your failed attempt to cover for your unsupported and unsupportable position. The desperation is inevitably what happens when reactionaries spew their fraudulent propaganda and no one is buying it.
Oh, look out! Here comes People for the American Way! They might burn your garage down!
You just blew up your own argument. As it is you, a conservative, who is attempting to make my verbiage selection for me, a liberal. I for my part have already stated this: "Liberals can live with conservatives peacefully." Of course, conservatives would have to mind their own business and strive together for the peace of all Americans and not just for themselves.
No. Such. Expressions. Of. Compromise. From. MAGA-ites.
Moreover, if you don't want to be criticized for helping MAGA-ites carry out their self-righteous activities, separate your comments from those who do wish to control the lives of liberals. You can't have your cake and eat it too in this matter.
A bit dramatic eh? There are plenty matters I can accept from liberals and have done so before. However, deeper and farther control over what remains of my personal life-nope. I don't want to be conservative; you don't want to be liberal. But, here we are, being both. The difference is you conservatives want to move to sweep away liberal control wholesale—I want conservatives to stay. within. their. lane.
Enough of the republican talk about freedom and liberties, while they labor desperately to limit liberals expanding view on liberties and freedoms! You will be called out for it. More freedoms for everybody as long as it does no harm to other people. And Jack_TX that harm can not be made up just for effect and a talking point. Real harm, everybody can agree upon!
Wow, that says it all. You are so locked into your partisan world view that you cannot see the forest for the trees. So according to you only a conservative organization can engage in fraud, corruption and self-dealing. Seems you forgot one little thing, the fucking GREED of the person. And you ignore all those who joined the riots in the past couple of years, loudly proclaiming they were there to support BLM yet engaged in destruction of private and public property.
Your bias is clear to see, you refuse to engage in an honest discussion of things. Have a nice life.
You really need to take that mirror off your desk. When you look at yourself in it when trying to reply to someone you confuse what you are typing with yourself and your own actions.
I seriously doubt it.
I've done no such thing. I've told you it's biased. What you do with that is up to you.
That doesn't make it true.
Exactly. You'll only "live peacefully" if they do what you want.
The amusing part is that you appear to think you have offered compromise.
This is a great example. I never said any such thing. You infer a pile of nonsense because of your existing bias.
Where did I say that? It's interesting how so-called "conservatives" frequently make-up things they pretend people have said, when, in reality, it was never written or said. Then, they engage in arguments with themselves about it. They must derive some kind of weird satisfaction out of it.
That doesn't mean it's true. Not unlike you pretending I said something I never said.
Pretending people said things they didn't say isn't generally considered "an honest discussion".
I have a really nice life. Can you say the same?
Why not?! Is it liberals that are determined to ostracize, stigmatize, and criminalize conservatives for your raison d'être? Or is it conservatives who try to legislatively contrrol girls and women's uterus,' deny marriage life to LGBTQ, or 'otherize' minorities?
Lack of self awareness.
You go on tirade after tirade about how terrible conservatives are, and then you turn around and try to claim you can live with them peacefully. You're kidding yourself.
Jack_TX it is you who is kidding himself. Nobody or group is self-entitled to "jack-up" other peoples lives across the board and all the while delude oneself into thinking s/he is righteous in doing so.
You have no moral high ground to stand on. . . I am willing to 'go there' with you and challenge any evangelical Christian doctrine you can bring to the table to prove it so. Just name a time and place. Preferably off this article which is about Biden's Impeachment. I am doubtful of your acceptance of this challenge, nevertheless.
OK, we'll go back to this: Who...exactly... has 'jacked up' your life, and how. Be specific.
You have never yet been able to formulate an answer to that question, yet you routinely insist these evil conservatives are "keeping you down" or "controlling your life" or "jacking up your life" or some other such wild accusation for which you can supply no evidence.
It's like a chupacabra. You believe it exists because you have been told it exists and nothing will dissuade you.
Do you keep up with current events the same way you keep up with comments? I have explained for months now the 'state of play' in the republican party and conservative 'take-over' doctrine underway. Even language like "conservative justices" or "liberal justices" is. . . ridiculous-as what we should have is standalone, independent justices who decide the law beneficial to the whole of society. It is to any court's shame that it allows to stand such understanding and it to stain their profession.
So. I am not about to play the pathetic back and forth dodgy "break it down like to a child,' some of you conservatives thing is an endgame to reasonable discussion. Go study up your damn self—I ain't holding your hand to give you any 'special ed' on this nation's political shortcomings!
As for your stupid attempt at being patronizing, all I can say is it takes a special kind of guy to talk 'hit about others while supporting a party of lying, sniveling, wannabe controllers of everybody else lives while riding in the passenger side of Donald Trump's delusions: 'Points' have been taken from you before you begin to write!
Oh and nice dodge on not taking the challenge to support your evangelical Christian doctrine and its right to screw over and otherize your fellow citizens! You've got nothing so you move on.
So that's a "no, I'm going to deflect rather than answer".
And that's a "no, I don't have any examples of evil conservatives "jacking up my life".
And that's an "I'm angry that you keep pointing out I don't have any basis for this wild bullshit I claim".
So we're pretty much back where we usually end up.
And you can go bone up on something more instructive besides "lawyerly" stalling techniques for beginners. Try engaging others in discussion rather than stifling them with "proven" delay tactics! Go 'deep.' Shallowness is schmuckish.
As for discussion going forword-you can be dismissive of what others tell you; you can do that, and it would be wise to accept and understand why it will keep coming up here and in the real world! Nothing is settled or 'tabled' by games conservatives play.
[deleted]
What do you think air travel would cost if Carter hadn't deregulated it?
Are you old enough to remember what long distance costs before AT&T was broken up?
Of a different scale, some states have overdone professional license requirements that seem to have little relationship to public health or safety but do a good job at restricting the number of practitioners and keep the trainers and certifiers employed.
That sounds like regulation, not deregulation.
Which one, the overdone professional license requirements? If so, yes it's over regulation.
I kind of wish the first priority for Democrats was holding Trump accountable.
Sure there's a lot of stuff being thrown at the fan right now, but if the past is a guide, it will go nowhere after the midterms and get a reboot before the general election in 2024.
Call me a cynic if you want. I've been called worse.
I agree with you but I dont think the Democrats can do that by themselves.
Gaetz is looking for a distraction from his own legal woes and wants to change the narrative surrounding and enveloping him. On the other hand, any committees they set up will and should face a steady dose of stone-walling and delaying tactics as can be mustered. After all, why play fair with a bunch of dishonest and self-interested politicians?