Politics

[Newboomer]

3 REASONS the GOP is fighting against McCarthy the MSM won't tell you

Texas Representative Chip Roy didn't mince words when he explained to Glenn why the GOP is fighting against House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy: What we're fighting for are the tools and the leadership necessary to stop the swamp from rolling over the average American who are sick and tired...

www.glennbeck.com

1. We MUST elect House leadership who will challenge the swamp

Rep. Roy told Glenn that "Americans are tired of D.C. elites undermining their freedom, spending money we don’t have, and continuing to violate every promise they made in the campaign." Does that sound like Kevin McCarthy?

McCarthy's track record speaks for itself: he is a swamp elite who benefits from the status quo and won't enable other Republicans to deliver on their campaign promises of leading desperately needed reform in D.C.

During his tenure as the House Minority Leader under the first half of the Biden administration, McCarthy voted with Democrats to pass the multi-trillion-dollar omnibus bills, even though Republicans were in the minority and had nothing to lose by voting against the omnibus bills. Since McCarthy has been in House leadership, the federal deficit almost tripled from $11 trillion to $32 trillion.

It's important to note the House Speaker is in charge of committee appointments and delegating positions to GOP leadership. Whether or not McCarthy appoints swamp Republicans to key leadership positions will largely determine how Congress functions for the next term. Anti-McCarthy Republicans have little faith that McCarthy will appoint Republicans who will actually drain the swamp. This is deeply troubling, especially regarding the anti-McCarthy Republicans' other two goals.

2. We MUST amend the House Rules Committee

Did you know there's a small committee that determines which bills reach the House floor? This is the House Rules Committee, and they are one of the main reasons why Dems and the D.C. establishment have been able to push through multi-trillion-dollar legislation, like last month's $1.7 trillion omnibus bill. If the Rules Committee is filled with career swamp politicians, regardless of whether or not they are Republican or Democrat, we can expect the status quo—unfulfilled campaign promises, reckless omnibus bills, open borders, and unaccountability over government corruption.

As Rep. Roy says, "We have to have people on the rules committee who reflect the conservatives who elected Republicans to change the town.” The anti-McCarthy Republicans have little faith that McCarthy will appoint Reps to the Rules Committee who will prevent omnibus bills and trillion-dollar legislation from reaching the floor.

3. We MUST change the rules for bringing legislation to the floor

In addition to changing the Representatives on the House Rules Committee, the GOP challenging McCarthy want to change the rules for bringing legislation to the floor. Currently, the Rules Committee can push multi-thousand-page legislation to the floor and require an immediate "yes or no" vote without giving the representatives the opportunity to actuallyread the entirety of the bill let alone debate the bill itself and potential amendments. This, in addition to swamp Republicans who side with Democrat legislation (like McCarthy), is the reason why Congress has been able to push multi-trillion-dollar spending bills without giving dissenting Representatives the opportunity to read and debate the thousands of pages of legislation.

The anti-McCarthy GOP wants to change that. They want to revise the rules to require debate over legislation and amendments and discourage thousand-page bills that make it effectively impossible for dissenters to challenge. This would better ensure Congress is passing meaningful legislation that better reflects the will of the American people.

However, McCarthy has shown he is unwilling to budge on this potential concession. Why? Because he has benefited from the omnibus bills, hiding his pet projects alongside the other pet projects of other swamp politicians into the omnibus bills. These rules would make it very difficult for swamp politicians to push their agenda through omnibus bills—a concession McCarthy won't so easily give.

If Republicans don't deliver on their promises, why elect them in the first place?

Glenn asked Rep. Choy the question at the heart of the McCarthy debate: "If you guys don't have the freedom to investigate and teeth and the backbone to actually do things in the interest of all Americans, why did we vote for any Republicans?

This is what the anti-McCarthy Republicans are fighting for—the freedom and ability to do things in the interest of all Americans. If McCarthy is elected as House Speaker, it is very likely things will remain the status quo—and the American people demand better.

Chip Roy: GOP House Speaker fight is about ENDING THE SWAMP

The Republican Party found itself in chaos on Tuesday when Rep. Kevin McCarthy failed to receive enough votes to secure the House Speaker position. McCarthy told reporters the party is still ‘unified,’ but after tense meetings on Tuesday, Rep. Chip Roy tells Glenn some conservative members of...

www.glennbeck.com

It doesn't matter one iota who is eleted as speaker. It will be the same gutless nonsense, just different names. All those lying thieving swamp rats on both sides of the aisle give a damn about is holding onto their power and lining their own pockets. The welfare of the people never enters their petty reptilian minds.

 

[Wheels]

 

[Aaron N]

A question to our UK members, how does your school system work? I read an article where the author states that the children will be traumatized by having to continue math classes until they’re 18 as per the new PM’s pledge.

In Canada, you are required to have a 30 level(aka grade 12) math to graduate.

Is this a case of taking your grade 12 math early because your advanced, and requiring to take another class your 18th year, or are you not required to take math classes past a certain point?

 

[Alistair]

A question to our UK members, how does your school system work? I read an article where the author states that the children will be traumatized by having to continue math classes until they’re 18 as per the new PM’s pledge.

In Canada, you are required to have a 30 level(aka grade 12) math to graduate.

Is this a case of taking your grade 12 math early because your advanced, and requiring to take another class your 18th year, or are you not required to take math classes past a certain point?

Back when I was at secondary school in 2008-2013, you had to take the core classes (maths, sciences, english, a language, geography, history etc) up until 16 when you took a General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) examination in all of them. At that point you could either do a trades apprenticeship until 18ish, leave for a job, or do academic A levels which were a precursor to University, finishing at 18.

If you did A levels, you chose somewhere between 3 and 5 classes at that point, so I did maths, physics, chemistry, biology then did a biochemistry degree at Uni. You could also choose to do any of the other core subjects you covered at GCSE like history, music, english, foreign languages, or do related specialisations like politics, business studies etc etc if you wanted. The other courses were not continued past GCSE at 16 (so maybe 10-25% of 17 year olds would still be doing a maths course). You could also complete an A level at 17 if you were good, and then do an extra one. A common one was to do 3 sciences and maths, finish maths early and then do 'further maths' as a 5th subject in the final year.

It seems now you need to stay on till 18 anyway for the core classes. Glancing at a syllabus for Maths 30 in Canada, that'd be roughly equivalent to an A level far as I can tell, maybe very marginally lower level.

 

[Aaron N]

Back when I was at secondary school in 2008-2013, you had to take the core classes (maths, sciences, english, a language, geography, history etc) up until 16 when you took a General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) examination in all of them. At that point you could either do a trades apprenticeship until 18ish, leave for a job, or do academic A levels which were a precursor to University, finishing at 18.

If you did A levels, you chose somewhere between 3 and 5 classes at that point, so I did maths, physics, chemistry, biology then did a biochemistry degree at Uni. You could also choose to do any of the other core subjects you covered at GCSE like history, music, english, foreign languages, or do related specialisations like politics, business studies etc etc if you wanted. The other courses were not continued past GCSE at 16 (so maybe 10-25% of 17 year olds would still be doing a maths course). You could also complete an A level at 17 if you were good, and then do an extra one. A common one was to do 3 sciences and maths, finish maths early and then do 'further maths' as a 5th subject in the final year.

It seems now you need to stay on till 18 anyway for the core classes. Glancing at a syllabus for Maths 30 in Canada, that'd be roughly equivalent to an A level far as I can tell, maybe very marginally lower level.

Interesting! Is this only a UK thing, or is it common throughout Europe?

 

[Alistair]

It's maybe a bit more of a European thing I think, although I'm not that up to speed on other countries systems.

Musing on it further, I think it's mostly a difference in views of what University degrees should be in the Americas vs the UK.

In the UK, you do only 1 topic at Uni. You do a degree in say Physics, and you do only physics classes, to a syllabus written by the School of Physics at your university. You don't do random classes in stuff like history, or literature or even Biology in the same way that US students do. Only Physics.

There's pros and cons to this. Obviously, you get a chance to dive a lot deeper into your area of specific focus, but you don't get any formal degree level teaching in anything else.

Moving back to A levels. The expectation in the UK is that by the end of your GCSEs (16) you know what you'd want to study at University, and now want to focus on a much tighter area of specialisation. If you want to do hard science at Uni, you don't need to do English as a subject any more, as you can now write and communicate effectively enough to write science papers and you're never ever going to do another literature class. As such, you cut almost all the core subjects except those few you want to study further. As with the uni system, this has pros and cons.

On the pro side, you go into university with a much greater knowledge of your degree specialisation. You've basically already done most of the first year US university classes as you spend much more time on that subject area during secondary school, so you start Uni at a higher level, and continue at a higher level from there. Thinking on biology, I'd already done most of the practical stuff my US educated colleagues describe doing in their first year by the end of secondary school, and by the end of 1st year of Uni, I was doing stuff they did in 3rd year onwards. I guess A levels are like AP classes in the US in that respect.

On the con side, most US college students have a much wider knowledge base of miscellaneous stuff than I do, both because they did more of that in the latter years of their secondary school time, and also depending on what additional classes they canvassed at college for fun.

 

[spike.t]

China’s ‘zero-COVID’ U-turn leads to loss of faith in leadership

Chinese people were told they were fighting the virus together, now some are disillusioned by the abrupt policy change.

www.aljazeera.com

 

[RTG]

150,000 Votes in the 2020 Election Not Tied to a Valid Address in Wisconsin: Election Watchdog

www.theepochtimes.com

Sandy Alldredge said that after learning that some Wisconsin precincts posted a 103 percent voter turnout in the 2020 election; and that there were 7.3 million registered voters in a state with a total population of 5.9 million, she decided to check out the voting records in her former hometown.

“I was outraged to learn that the Wisconsin state voter roll shows that I voted in person at the polls on Nov. 3, 2020, when the fact is I was living, registered to vote, and voted in Tennessee. I was not in Wisconsin that day,”

Same story in AZ. Same story in PA. We will never win a national election if we don’t have fair elections. The battles that matters is not in Ukraine, it is right here at home. This war has been waged for over a decade, with only one side fighting.

Much of this fraud, and the democrats nearly unlimited supply of ballots, is the result of the billions of dollars given to Acorn and Project Vote during Obama’s first term.

 

[Kevin Peacocke]

150,000 Votes in the 2020 Election Not Tied to a Valid Address in Wisconsin: Election Watchdog

www.theepochtimes.com

Sandy Alldredge said that after learning that some Wisconsin precincts posted a 103 percent voter turnout in the 2020 election; and that there were 7.3 million registered voters in a state with a total population of 5.9 million, she decided to check out the voting records in her former hometown.

“I was outraged to learn that the Wisconsin state voter roll shows that I voted in person at the polls on Nov. 3, 2020, when the fact is I was living, registered to vote, and voted in Tennessee. I was not in Wisconsin that day,”

Same story in AZ. Same story in PA. We will never win a national election if we don’t have fair elections. The battles that matters is not in Ukraine, it is right here at home. This war has been waged for over a decade, with only one side fighting.

Much of this fraud, and the democrats nearly unlimited supply of ballots, is the result of the billions of dollars given to Acorn and Project Vote during Obama’s first term.

Is this true? And if it is true is it consequential? And if it is consequential is anyone being investigated/prosecuted?

 

[Hogpatrol]

Is this true? And if it is true is it consequential? And if it is consequential is anyone being investigated/prosecuted?

Kevin, Currently happening in the U.S., gangs of retail thieves and individuals are walking out of stores with grocery carts or bags of expensive goods without paying for them and no one stops them. Some are going in to a store, hooking up a rope or cable and ripping out the ATM. They do it in broad daylight. It's the same culture with the Dems. They do what they want to win an election and no one calls them on it. From what I see on TV, most major cities are almost at the point of criminal anarchy.
In Philadelphia, doesn't matter where or when you are there, you could be a gunshot victim.

How Home Depot Is Fighting Shoplifting With New Technology

Home Depot gave Inside Edition an exclusive look at the company's latest crime-fighting technology, including a shopping cart with wheels that lock if you don't pay for some of the items.

www.insideedition.com

 

[375 Ruger Fan]

That said, Lauren Boebert does indeed strike me as having the intellectual capacity of a cucumber. Purely my personal belief - I have not seen her SAT scores - though I do not believe they likely exist.

I Googled Boebert:

Grew up poor, family on welfare.
Dropped out of high school her senior year (2004), pregnant.
A few years later, got her GED in 2020.
Husband is an oilfield consultant and makes good money ($400k) according to released tax returns.

In 2016, Boebert was cited for careless driving and operating an unsafe vehicle. On February 13, 2017, she was arrested and booked in Garfield County Jail for failure to appear in court on these charges. She pleaded guilty to the unsafe vehicle charge, and the careless driving and failure to appear charges were dismissed.

In her 2022 memoir, Boebert claimed that her husband never exposed himself in public, despite pleading guilty and serving jail time for an incident. Jayson Boebert was arrested in 2004 for exposing himself to two young women at a Colorado bowling alley. He pleaded guilty to public indecency and lewd exposure, and was sentenced to four days in jail with a subsequent two years of probation.

 

[Doug3006]

Election fraud is a fact. It has also been with us since the founding. Is it worse now? Maybe. Hard to tell. I once read that Lyndon Johnson’s most dependable voters were dead people and household pets! Pols in NY and Chicago used to (Maybe still do) buy votes with alcohol . Voter rolls have been padded, precincts have turned away legit voters who weren‘t trusted to vote the “right” way. Any trick you can think of and some you’d never guess. Politicians are, in general, a scurvy lot.

In squeaker elections, like we’ve had lately, fraud can have a significant impact. Seems to me that Conservatives need to run serious candidates who can articulate winning positions so they win by blow out. Then, once they’re in power, change the crooked rules, appoint fair election officials, and prosecute cheaters. Just like DeSantis did in Florida.

 

[Doug3006]

I Googled Boebert:

Grew up poor, family on welfare.
Dropped out of high school her senior year (2004), pregnant.
A few years later, got her GED in 2020.
Husband is an oilfield consultant and makes good money ($400k) according to released tax returns.

In 2016, Boebert was cited for careless driving and operating an unsafe vehicle. On February 13, 2017, she was arrested and booked in Garfield County Jail for failure to appear in court on these charges. She pleaded guilty to the unsafe vehicle charge, and the careless driving and failure to appear charges were dismissed.

In her 2022 memoir, Boebert claimed that her husband never exposed himself in public, despite pleading guilty and serving jail time for an incident. Jayson Boebert was arrested in 2004 for exposing himself to two young women at a Colorado bowling alley. He pleaded guilty to public indecency and lewd exposure, and was sentenced to four days in jail with a subsequent two years of probation.

Seems like she’s quite a loon.

 

[wesheltonj]

It's maybe a bit more of a European thing I think, although I'm not that up to speed on other countries systems.

Musing on it further, I think it's mostly a difference in views of what University degrees should be in the Americas vs the UK.

In the UK, you do only 1 topic at Uni. You do a degree in say Physics, and you do only physics classes, to a syllabus written by the School of Physics at your university. You don't do random classes in stuff like history, or literature or even Biology in the same way that US students do. Only Physics.

There's pros and cons to this. Obviously, you get a chance to dive a lot deeper into your area of specific focus, but you don't get any formal degree level teaching in anything else.

Moving back to A levels. The expectation in the UK is that by the end of your GCSEs (16) you know what you'd want to study at University, and now want to focus on a much tighter area of specialisation. If you want to do hard science at Uni, you don't need to do English as a subject any more, as you can now write and communicate effectively enough to write science papers and you're never ever going to do another literature class. As such, you cut almost all the core subjects except those few you want to study further. As with the uni system, this has pros and cons.

On the pro side, you go into university with a much greater knowledge of your degree specialisation. You've basically already done most of the first year US university classes as you spend much more time on that subject area during secondary school, so you start Uni at a higher level, and continue at a higher level from there. Thinking on biology, I'd already done most of the practical stuff my US educated colleagues describe doing in their first year by the end of secondary school, and by the end of 1st year of Uni, I was doing stuff they did in 3rd year onwards. I guess A levels are like AP classes in the US in that respect.

On the con side, most US college students have a much wider knowledge base of miscellaneous stuff than I do, both because they did more of that in the latter years of their secondary school time, and also depending on what additional classes they canvassed at college for fun.

Well my understand is, you needs the grades to get the extra University year to get an Honors Bachelors and with out that you are done advancing in University. And you also have a Masters degree that does not require any course work, M Phil and the same for a Ph.D. Very different from the North American models.

 

[BSO Dave]

I Googled Boebert:

Grew up poor, family on welfare.
Dropped out of high school her senior year (2004), pregnant.
A few years later, got her GED in 2020.
Husband is an oilfield consultant and makes good money ($400k) according to released tax returns.

In 2016, Boebert was cited for careless driving and operating an unsafe vehicle. On February 13, 2017, she was arrested and booked in Garfield County Jail for failure to appear in court on these charges. She pleaded guilty to the unsafe vehicle charge, and the careless driving and failure to appear charges were dismissed.

In her 2022 memoir, Boebert claimed that her husband never exposed himself in public, despite pleading guilty and serving jail time for an incident. Jayson Boebert was arrested in 2004 for exposing himself to two young women at a Colorado bowling alley. He pleaded guilty to public indecency and lewd exposure, and was sentenced to four days in jail with a subsequent two years of probation.

I Googled her as well.. Interesting you cherry-picked the info and the context to support your obvious bias toward her or her ideology or dislike for her personality.. If you ever want a job at the New York Times, I'm sure you could get one. If you are going to characterize someone, do it fairly..

If you don't like her for whatever reasons, that's certainly your prerogative. However, as a member of this site, I assume you are a gun owner and pro-2nd Amendment? If so, you should also acknowledge that a big part of Bobert's popularity and endearment by her constituency is her staunch advocacy for gun rights. She first made political headlines confronting and embarrassing Dumbo O'Rourke in a town hall gun grab rally put on by O'Rourke.. Like her or not, she's one of the few in Congress willing to go to the mat on gun rights, and that's a pretty big deal these days. Most so-called "conservatives" and "republicans" are political cowards when it comes to this issue. She is not..!

You also deliberately chose to mention that she grew up poor and dropped out of school to raise her kid as if this is something to be ashamed of? I suppose you would prefer to hear she aborted it like the liberals would?

She also worked as a McDonald's manager then became a pipefitter. Is working in a traditionally noble trade field also supposed to be some sort of embarrassment? I would characterize her as someone to be admired who worked her way up from poverty to success. Is the successful pursuit of the American Dream something to mock in your view?

Afte meeting her husband (likely during her time as a pipefitter) they jointly opened up 3 different restaurants, all of which were all but destroyed during the asinine covid restrictions in that existed in Colorado. Her public defiance of these restrictions and outspoken support for fellow Colorado business owners is to a greater extent what propelled her in the spotlight for political office. She defeated a 6-term incumbent in the primaries and then went on to beat the democrat candidate by 6 points. She was recently re-elected to her second term albeit by a few hundred votes. Regardless, her constituents re-elected her because they feel she is the one who best represents them and their interests in west-central Colorado. So, what you and I think really doesn't matter. The voters in her district obviously feel she's doing what they elected her to do..

It also doesn't hurt that she's smoking hot!

 

[fourfive8]

Yes. Unlike normal swamp rat politicians she is fearless and speaks her mind. But I guess some people prefer to be lied to.

 

[Kevin Peacocke]

This speaker thing was said to be 'grinding sausage', more like perri perri beer sticks... you guys sure get riled up over a little wooden hammer!

 

[Alistair]

Well my understand is, you needs the grades to get the extra University year to get an Honors Bachelors and with out that you are done advancing in University. And you also have a Masters degree that does not require any course work, M Phil and the same for a Ph.D. Very different from the North American models.

I don't th8nk thats the case in the UK.
You can't get into uni at all without a levels and all 3 year uni courses are honors courses.

If you get good enough grades you graduate with honors, if you scrape a pass but only just, you just graduate after 3 years.

A 4 years batchwlors usually means it's either a sandwich course with a year in industry, like mine was, or it's a matter conversion as described below.

Usually you need a batchelors degree to do a masters at all, although a couple of courses allow you to convert a batchelors into a masters if you do well enough in first and second year.

Masters can either be taught masters, or research masters.

PhDs are all research based and you almost always need a masters before you can apply for those programs.

 

[Doug3006]

This speaker thing was said to be 'grinding sausage', more like perri perri beer sticks... you guys sure get riled up over a little wooden hammer!

That’s a pretty good take Kevin. The truth is, King Solomon could be reincarnated and voted in unanimously as Speaker, and it wouldn’t matter much. With a slight majority in the House and the Senate and President being Dem, the House won’t be able to do much of anything.

 

[Kevin Peacocke]

This speaker thing was said to be 'grinding sausage', more like perri perri beer sticks... you guys sure get riled up over a little wooden hammer!

A joke guys, I am on the edge of my seet as any, US politics is exciting stuff indeed.