Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sure they do. They are far right extremists. They want to oppress everyone who is not with them, just as they are oppressing the 200 who voted for McCarthy. Please explain how they are not going to oppress RINOs and those on the left.they have no intentions of oppressing people,,
I believe you have allowed your emotions to take you places your logic would have warned you weren't well thought out.It hasn't yet but they're trying as we speak.
I'm sorry, I guess I should have finished the thought--so why shouldn't the republicans fight fire with fire is the general consensus here. The republicans still haven't figured out how to get their shit together. Been that way for a long time. I remember when Newt Gingrich got his "contract with America" going in 1996--Republican control, but they couldn't get out of their own way to get anything accomplished. Seems they do it everytime they gain some semblance of control. Who knows? Probably by design.It's that way with both parties.
tell me how if they are independently thinking and expressing that with their vote oppressing anyone??Sure they do. They are far right extremists. They want to oppress everyone who is not with them, just as they are oppressing the 200 who voted for McCarthy. Please explain how they are not going to oppress RINOs and those on the left.
dont make it complicated,, hes not that bright,,The entire house votes for speaker, so if it is roughly 47% Democrats and 5% republicans voting against the horrible candidate for speaker, then 5% is NOT oppressing 95%.
Personally I would rather have anyone else be speaker, including the democrat.
#anyonebutkevin
So, you don't think Russia or Venezuela oppress anyone?how are they oppressing anyone??
those are countries not people and cant oppress anyone,,,So, you don't think Russia or Venezuela oppress anyone?
I don't believe that the majority should run roughshod over the minority but I also believe that the minority should not run roughshod over the majority. There has to be limits to it all in some fashion.I believe you have allowed your emotions to take you places your logic would have warned you weren't well thought out.
Do you oppose the filibuster?
Do you oppose the Supreme Court?
Do you oppose the Electoral College?
Because each and every one of those allows a minority to stymy the majority.
Get it now?
thats what the constitution is for,,I don't believe that the majority should run roughshod over the minority but I also believe that the minority should not run roughshod over the majority. There has to be limits to it all in some fashion.
That's what I asked in 2020.What is the sense in voting if the 5% can oppress the 95%? In fact, with that level of oppression you can do away with voting or rig the elections as Russia, Venezuela, and a few other countries do.
The thing is, when it comes to the current dilemma in the House, who doesn't have their shit together, the 200 voting for McCarthy, or the 20 who aren't?I'm sorry, I guess I should have finished the thought--so why shouldn't the republicans fight fire with fire is the general consensus here. The republicans still haven't figured out how to get their shit together. Been that way for a long time. I remember when Newt Gingrich got his "contract with America" going in 1996--Republican control, but they couldn't get out of their own way to get anything accomplished. Seems they do it everytime they gain some semblance of control. Who knows? Probably by design.
what about the dems not voting for him??The thing is, when it comes to the current dilemma in the House, who doesn't have their shit together, the 200 voting for McCarthy, or the 20 who aren't?
I am against a very small minority trying to oppress the very huge majority. The 5% shouldn't be getting their way over the 95%. It was never supposed to be like that. Now, if you want to talk about more closer percentages, then I agree with you. If we had 125 voting for McCarthy and 100 voting against, I don't think the majority should run roughshod over the minority.tell me how if they are independently thinking and expressing that with their vote oppressing anyone??
you are in favor of independent thought arent you?? or are you a group think person??
The vote is actually 232 against and 200 for McCarthyThe thing is, when it comes to the current dilemma in the House, who doesn't have their shit together, the 200 voting for McCarthy, or the 20 who aren't?
they arent 5%,, they are part of the majority not voting for mccarthy,,,I am against a very small minority trying to oppress the very huge majority. The 5% shouldn't be getting their way over the 95%. It was never supposed to be like that. Now, if you want to talk about more closer percentages, then I agree with you. If we had 125 voting for McCarthy and 100 voting against, I don't think the majority should run roughshod over the minority.
How many Republicans do you think should have voted for Hakeem Jeffries?what about the dems not voting for him??
The limit is...every Representative gets a vote...and they get to vote for the person that they believe is best suited to fill the office of Speaker.I don't believe that the majority should run roughshod over the minority but I also believe that the minority should not run roughshod over the majority. There has to be limits to it all in some fashion.
LOL. Sure.The vote is actually 232 against and 200 for McCarthy
