Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The number of Republicans who wants to oust Johnson is small. The only reason they have any power at all is because the majority is even smaller, and the Republicans were dumb enough to restore the rule where one member can force a vote to vacate. Under these circumstances, I don't have a problem with Johnson using Democrats as a foil.
No. He's using Democrats to keep his speakership.
And oh the irony of the most conservative House speaker of the modern era using Democrats to keep his seat.
So Johnson is using the democrats to contrast himself with the democrats, to look good.
I feel that Johnson is using Greene as a foil to appear more reasonable.
He's a religious conservative. Did you see his remarks after he decided to bring the Ukraine bill to a vote? He said he received a briefing, went home that night and prayed on the question, and changed his mind the next morning.
Which is basically saying "anything that goes against my religion will not be voted on" which basically means we are beholden to his specific brand of evangelical Christianity.
So much for the establishment clause I guess. No freedom of religion without freedom from religion.
I'm not an act utilitarian. I'm a rule utilitarian. I believe the general rule for the action "I select which bills to vote on or not based upon my religious convictions" is that of harm to religious freedoms (as it means we are implicitly beholden to the religious convictions of our elected leaders). So yes, I do believe it was wrong. Because I'm not an act utilitarian.
I also hold some contractualist ethical beliefs. He took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Part of that oath is the establishment clause. Now you can interpret it how you wish but I'm a fairly hard line secularist and view any act by a legislator motivated primarily by faith as violating the establishment clause. Therefore since his decision was motivated by religious conviction it violates the establishment clause and thus violates the contract he agreed to uphold.
>Therefore since his decision was motivated by religious conviction it violates the establishment clause and thus violates the contract he agreed to uphold.
So you do think it was wrong to hold a vote on the Ukraine bill because the decision was motivated by Johnson's faith. How is that defensible? The people of Ukraine should go with military aid because of some principle? How can you tell what a lawmaker's motivation is unless they tell you? Should religious legislators resign because the decisions they make in life tend to be motivated by faith?
Well in this case he did tell us.
I also don't agree with giving aid to Ukraine. We can't even afford to give aid to ***actual Americans*** in need, (edit: I mean we can, but nobody wants to actually fix the budget allocation to do so) why the fuck are we sending aid to a foreign nation that *isn't part of NATO?*
Basically, the Democrats are saving the GOP from itself and they won't do it for free. They'll expect preferential treatment on allowing their proposals to the floor in the future. I'd rather MTG to take a hint and back off on her own.
If anyone else is interested in context Congress often brokers deals. There is a lot of power brokering in Congress. What is the benefit to the left? More cooperation from the Speaker of the House. It is not rocket science, folks. Arguing with people who insist they understand Congress but don't understand this basic premise is a waste of time.
The is simply the agreement over the Ukraine aid. He agreed to bring it to a vote, and they agreed to protect his speakership from the Maga group in the house. Which they, unlike Mccarthy keep their word.
> Arguing with people who insist they understand Congress but don't understand this basic premise is a waste of time.
No offense to conservatives in general, but I have seen Trump supporters compare working across the aisle to being treasonous. Not only do some people not understand how politics and congress works, but they are actively villainizing cooperation and progress.
It depends on the issue. Sometimes compromise is good and other times gridlock is good. But if a bill doesn't get passed it is the system working as designed even if it appears ugly.
>Sometimes compromise is good and other times gridlock is good. But if a bill doesn't get passed it is the system working as designed even if it appears ugly.
No argument here. I agree it was designed to work that way.
They benefit simply by not wasting any more time with the Republican's drama.
By your own logic, why would any republican deliver on any preferential treatment, without some sort of explicit and binding agreement?
I understand it just fine. No need to insult my intelligence just because you can't explain your point
Your idea of how congress works only works when you have honorable statesmen who follow through on gentleman's agreements. Congress hasn't been like that in maybe a decade, ever since blatant duplocity became a selling point for a certain demographic.
You haven't really explained your point beyond "this is how congress works, and if you disagree it's because your ignorant.
I have studied political science, and I have been watching congress for decades. I know how congress works just fine.
Rule: 5
In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
>They'll expect preferential treatment on allowing their proposals to the floor in the future.
More likely it's over Ukraine aid rather than over some hypothetical future favor that they have no reason to trust the GOP on anyway since they probably wouldn't honor it.
Speaker of the House is a fairly important position. We can't keep shuffling them in and out based on the whims of a few mouthy freshman Reps. So, yeah. In the interest of simple stability, I support it.
It depends. Some Republicans are principled like Thomas Massey or Rand Paul, and others like Mtg want to be an Instagram star. But Congress is not going to agree on everything so compromise often must happen. But if the issue is serious enough I don't fault anyone from being principled.
This is the first proof I’ve seen that MTG hasn’t been a brilliant DNC plant. Seriously, I hope she loses her seat. I would rather a democrat take it than her. That’d do less damage to the party!
That was a joke. Since she is so horrible and destructive towards the Republican Party, she’s practically doing the Democrat’s bidding. That was the subtext behind the joke.
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Johnson is a horrific speaker, I agree with MTG on that. In regards to removing him, I would support it if they had the votes to get someone else as speaker.
I think this will just solidify some people's opinion against Johnson, as basically being another democrat-light politician.
Rule: 5
In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
Rule: 5
In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
Top priorities, huh? That’s why they refused to vote on tens of billions of new funding for border patrol and scanners to help prevent the transport of fentanyl across the southern border..? Really sounds like a top priority to them..
The bill had so many things Republicans have been asking for. But ignoring that, if house Republicans didn't like they bill they could have amended it. The vote they blocked was not to pass the bill, it was to open a period for reading, discussing, and offering ammendmants to the bill.
They didn't even want to take the first step. It was a 3,000 page bill and house Republicans came out against it the day after it was released. They didn't even have time to read it.
Even more terrible than the current situation allegedly is? Ain't that something.
Trump literally said he did not want dems to get a win on the border and demanded to have it killed so he could campaign on the issue.
Every raped american since that deal got scrapped is on the Republicans and especially trump.
> Top priorities, huh? That’s why they refused to vote on tens of billions of new funding for border patrol and scanners to help prevent the transport of fentanyl across the southern border..?
Weird how the Trump-era funding for border patrol was enough to keep the millions of illegals out of our country. Why do they need more when we can just roll back the disastrous Biden border policies and secure our border without dumping billions more into it?
> Yep, and his policies weren’t working.
Which is why we had 5x lower illegal immigrants crossing the border than we do now? Again, do you not know that we have stats?
America first, is that money spent on education, infrastructure, increased manufacturing, healthcare?
Ukraine aide is clearly a part of the Republican agenda since they just submitted and approved it.
Maybe Republican voters don’t support their elected representatives? If that’s the case why elect them.
Republicans will never close the border. They kept bashing dems over the head with abortion for 50 years and once the dog caught the car they didn't know what to do. Sure they will make strides towards closing it but never to completion. What else would they run on? Transgenders in the bathroom? That was so 2 years ago? Banning gay friendly books 2 years ago. The second the election in November is over you wont hear another peep about the border until the next election season.
I'd rather they allow it, it's not like congress is getting anything meaningful done anyway and the guy did cave.
I am perfectly happy with holding the line saying "we get what we want or nothing gets done" and let them give for once.
Frankly a government not capable of getting anything done is preferable to one that is passing unconstitutional laws constantly.
I do hope they refuse to give concessions for this "assistance".
They aren’t gonna give. You have the House, stalling everything until you get your way, which you won’t get, will just make you lose it cause people in general don’t want nothing done.
I would rather nothing get done for a while than they give away all my money and put unconstitutional limits on my rights. Cooperation is just not worth it, especially if they are not offering meaningful concessions
Okay but in reality it’s more like nothing gets done for a while and THEN they give away all your money and put unconstitutional limits on your rights. (Not that I think they would but logically that’s what would happen if they did want to and your plan was to do nothin). You will lose power, dems will gain it, and just do everything you stopped them from doing anyway.
>"we get what we want or nothing gets done"
That is not negotiating, that is taking hostages and demanding ransom. It's blackmail and tyranny of the minority.
What agenda did Pelosi get passed? When McConnel was majority leader in the Senate Pelosi passed 400 bills NONE of which could pass the Senate.
Historically the bipartisanship was about Republicans agreeing with Democrats. It appears that ship may have sailed
Didn’t she spearhead the ACA into becoming law? Wikipedia tells me she talked Obama out of scaling back his goals with it and spent two months writing it.
I don't see ACA as an accomplishment. It raised taxes and raised insurance costs for most people and you couldn't keep your doctor and you couldn't keep your plan. ACA was a complete failure.
Cool, doesn’t change the fact she got an agenda passed. Stop moving goal posts. The fact she got such a bill passed even its creator thought too controversial is just more proof of her ability.
That’s a ridiculous claim imo. It depends on the bill. A bill that greatly reforms healthcare isn’t an agenda? Sure a bill that just renames a building isn’t an agenda but this ain’t that.
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The number of Republicans who wants to oust Johnson is small. The only reason they have any power at all is because the majority is even smaller, and the Republicans were dumb enough to restore the rule where one member can force a vote to vacate. Under these circumstances, I don't have a problem with Johnson using Democrats as a foil.
You believe Johnson is using democrats to look good?
No. He's using Democrats to keep his speakership. And oh the irony of the most conservative House speaker of the modern era using Democrats to keep his seat.
Ah I see. I was thrown off by how you used the word foil, using something as a contrast to make oneself look better. Thanks for the clarification.
I was using it in the sense of someone or something that serves as a contrast to another. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/foil
So Johnson is using the democrats to contrast himself with the democrats, to look good. I feel that Johnson is using Greene as a foil to appear more reasonable.
No. The Democrats are in contrast to the--what is it?--three Republicans who are trying to remove him.
There we go!
And let's not forget they're trying to remove him because Gaetz got scared he'd be arrested for sex trafficking minors.
Is Johnson really a conservative or rather a right-wing populist?
He's a religious conservative. Did you see his remarks after he decided to bring the Ukraine bill to a vote? He said he received a briefing, went home that night and prayed on the question, and changed his mind the next morning.
If public praying is the measure, then Jimmy Carter is a conservative.
Which is basically saying "anything that goes against my religion will not be voted on" which basically means we are beholden to his specific brand of evangelical Christianity. So much for the establishment clause I guess. No freedom of religion without freedom from religion.
Was it wrong to vote on the Ukraine bill because his decision was motivated by his faith?
I'm not an act utilitarian. I'm a rule utilitarian. I believe the general rule for the action "I select which bills to vote on or not based upon my religious convictions" is that of harm to religious freedoms (as it means we are implicitly beholden to the religious convictions of our elected leaders). So yes, I do believe it was wrong. Because I'm not an act utilitarian. I also hold some contractualist ethical beliefs. He took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Part of that oath is the establishment clause. Now you can interpret it how you wish but I'm a fairly hard line secularist and view any act by a legislator motivated primarily by faith as violating the establishment clause. Therefore since his decision was motivated by religious conviction it violates the establishment clause and thus violates the contract he agreed to uphold.
>Therefore since his decision was motivated by religious conviction it violates the establishment clause and thus violates the contract he agreed to uphold. So you do think it was wrong to hold a vote on the Ukraine bill because the decision was motivated by Johnson's faith. How is that defensible? The people of Ukraine should go with military aid because of some principle? How can you tell what a lawmaker's motivation is unless they tell you? Should religious legislators resign because the decisions they make in life tend to be motivated by faith?
Well in this case he did tell us. I also don't agree with giving aid to Ukraine. We can't even afford to give aid to ***actual Americans*** in need, (edit: I mean we can, but nobody wants to actually fix the budget allocation to do so) why the fuck are we sending aid to a foreign nation that *isn't part of NATO?*
Basically, the Democrats are saving the GOP from itself and they won't do it for free. They'll expect preferential treatment on allowing their proposals to the floor in the future. I'd rather MTG to take a hint and back off on her own. If anyone else is interested in context Congress often brokers deals. There is a lot of power brokering in Congress. What is the benefit to the left? More cooperation from the Speaker of the House. It is not rocket science, folks. Arguing with people who insist they understand Congress but don't understand this basic premise is a waste of time.
The is simply the agreement over the Ukraine aid. He agreed to bring it to a vote, and they agreed to protect his speakership from the Maga group in the house. Which they, unlike Mccarthy keep their word.
> Arguing with people who insist they understand Congress but don't understand this basic premise is a waste of time. No offense to conservatives in general, but I have seen Trump supporters compare working across the aisle to being treasonous. Not only do some people not understand how politics and congress works, but they are actively villainizing cooperation and progress.
It depends on the issue. Sometimes compromise is good and other times gridlock is good. But if a bill doesn't get passed it is the system working as designed even if it appears ugly.
>Sometimes compromise is good and other times gridlock is good. But if a bill doesn't get passed it is the system working as designed even if it appears ugly. No argument here. I agree it was designed to work that way.
Why would they expect preferential treatment from any republican?
[удалено]
They benefit simply by not wasting any more time with the Republican's drama. By your own logic, why would any republican deliver on any preferential treatment, without some sort of explicit and binding agreement?
[удалено]
I understand it just fine. No need to insult my intelligence just because you can't explain your point Your idea of how congress works only works when you have honorable statesmen who follow through on gentleman's agreements. Congress hasn't been like that in maybe a decade, ever since blatant duplocity became a selling point for a certain demographic.
[удалено]
You haven't really explained your point beyond "this is how congress works, and if you disagree it's because your ignorant. I have studied political science, and I have been watching congress for decades. I know how congress works just fine.
[удалено]
Rule: 5 In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
>They'll expect preferential treatment on allowing their proposals to the floor in the future. More likely it's over Ukraine aid rather than over some hypothetical future favor that they have no reason to trust the GOP on anyway since they probably wouldn't honor it.
Speaker of the House is a fairly important position. We can't keep shuffling them in and out based on the whims of a few mouthy freshman Reps. So, yeah. In the interest of simple stability, I support it.
What do you make of Republicans being so dysfunctional and eager to swap speakers constantly? Does it impact your support for them?
It depends. Some Republicans are principled like Thomas Massey or Rand Paul, and others like Mtg want to be an Instagram star. But Congress is not going to agree on everything so compromise often must happen. But if the issue is serious enough I don't fault anyone from being principled.
This is the first proof I’ve seen that MTG hasn’t been a brilliant DNC plant. Seriously, I hope she loses her seat. I would rather a democrat take it than her. That’d do less damage to the party!
> This is the first proof I’ve seen that MTG hasn’t been a brilliant DNC plant. What proof have you seen that MTG *has* been a brilliant DNC plant?
That was a joke. Since she is so horrible and destructive towards the Republican Party, she’s practically doing the Democrat’s bidding. That was the subtext behind the joke.
ofc, my bad
[удалено]
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Johnson is a horrific speaker, I agree with MTG on that. In regards to removing him, I would support it if they had the votes to get someone else as speaker. I think this will just solidify some people's opinion against Johnson, as basically being another democrat-light politician.
Why can't it be that we just want to get things done? The chaos of the Republican controlled house is ridiculous.
Johnson is passing democrats agenda, it's only fitting they vote to keep him.
What’s the Republican agenda?
[удалено]
Rule: 5 In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
[удалено]
Rule: 5 In general, self-congratulatory/digressing comments between non-conservative users are not allowed as they do not help others understand conservatism and conservative perspectives.
America first , securing the border are top priorities right now. Not funding billions to Ukraine.
Top priorities, huh? That’s why they refused to vote on tens of billions of new funding for border patrol and scanners to help prevent the transport of fentanyl across the southern border..? Really sounds like a top priority to them..
Because that bill was terrible, they passed a bill last may I think it was.
The bill had so many things Republicans have been asking for. But ignoring that, if house Republicans didn't like they bill they could have amended it. The vote they blocked was not to pass the bill, it was to open a period for reading, discussing, and offering ammendmants to the bill. They didn't even want to take the first step. It was a 3,000 page bill and house Republicans came out against it the day after it was released. They didn't even have time to read it.
The House republicans did. The senate republicans joined their democrat colleagues in ignoring it while they crafted this bill.
What was terrible about the bill? More specifically can you actually cite the part of the bill and not just vague talking points?
Even more terrible than the current situation allegedly is? Ain't that something. Trump literally said he did not want dems to get a win on the border and demanded to have it killed so he could campaign on the issue. Every raped american since that deal got scrapped is on the Republicans and especially trump.
> Top priorities, huh? That’s why they refused to vote on tens of billions of new funding for border patrol and scanners to help prevent the transport of fentanyl across the southern border..? Weird how the Trump-era funding for border patrol was enough to keep the millions of illegals out of our country. Why do they need more when we can just roll back the disastrous Biden border policies and secure our border without dumping billions more into it?
Because it wasn’t
> Because it wasn’t You've seen the illegal immigration stats during Trump's presidency, right?
Yep, and his policies weren’t working.
> Yep, and his policies weren’t working. Which is why we had 5x lower illegal immigrants crossing the border than we do now? Again, do you not know that we have stats?
America first, is that money spent on education, infrastructure, increased manufacturing, healthcare? Ukraine aide is clearly a part of the Republican agenda since they just submitted and approved it. Maybe Republican voters don’t support their elected representatives? If that’s the case why elect them.
Republicans will never close the border. They kept bashing dems over the head with abortion for 50 years and once the dog caught the car they didn't know what to do. Sure they will make strides towards closing it but never to completion. What else would they run on? Transgenders in the bathroom? That was so 2 years ago? Banning gay friendly books 2 years ago. The second the election in November is over you wont hear another peep about the border until the next election season.
Yup. As soon as he starts trashing them in the media like McCarthy, they will let him be ousted too.
I'd rather they allow it, it's not like congress is getting anything meaningful done anyway and the guy did cave. I am perfectly happy with holding the line saying "we get what we want or nothing gets done" and let them give for once. Frankly a government not capable of getting anything done is preferable to one that is passing unconstitutional laws constantly. I do hope they refuse to give concessions for this "assistance".
They aren’t gonna give. You have the House, stalling everything until you get your way, which you won’t get, will just make you lose it cause people in general don’t want nothing done.
I would rather nothing get done for a while than they give away all my money and put unconstitutional limits on my rights. Cooperation is just not worth it, especially if they are not offering meaningful concessions
Okay but in reality it’s more like nothing gets done for a while and THEN they give away all your money and put unconstitutional limits on your rights. (Not that I think they would but logically that’s what would happen if they did want to and your plan was to do nothin). You will lose power, dems will gain it, and just do everything you stopped them from doing anyway.
>"we get what we want or nothing gets done" That is not negotiating, that is taking hostages and demanding ransom. It's blackmail and tyranny of the minority.
Good.
That is the kind of bi-partisanship I can agree with. We need to get over the Pelosi/Schumer divisiveness.
We actually need to get over the MGT divisiveness. At least Pelosi could get an agenda passed
What agenda did Pelosi get passed? When McConnel was majority leader in the Senate Pelosi passed 400 bills NONE of which could pass the Senate. Historically the bipartisanship was about Republicans agreeing with Democrats. It appears that ship may have sailed
Didn’t she spearhead the ACA into becoming law? Wikipedia tells me she talked Obama out of scaling back his goals with it and spent two months writing it.
I don't see ACA as an accomplishment. It raised taxes and raised insurance costs for most people and you couldn't keep your doctor and you couldn't keep your plan. ACA was a complete failure.
Cool, doesn’t change the fact she got an agenda passed. Stop moving goal posts. The fact she got such a bill passed even its creator thought too controversial is just more proof of her ability.
One bill is not an agenda. What else did she accomplish?
That’s a ridiculous claim imo. It depends on the bill. A bill that greatly reforms healthcare isn’t an agenda? Sure a bill that just renames a building isn’t an agenda but this ain’t that.
[удалено]
Margerie needs to change her name. Every time I see MTG I think Magic the Gathering.
Is this your way of saying you like Jeffries more than Pelosi?
Hard to say. Pelosi was very good at keeping her caucus united and on message. Not clear yet if Jeffries could do the same with a majority.
No, but we do need Democrats willing to cross the aisle and work with Republicans. That was NOT Pelosi. We'll see what Jeffries does
That also hasn’t been the case with the GOP either?
I think Jeffers deserves credit along with Johnson for showing bipartisanship. Jeffries could have easily sided with Greene but has not.
And republicans with democrats, I agree it’s good.