Matt Gaetz Catch-All | Ethics report released

[Callatoroy]

Stop it. You sound absolutely ridiculous to the point of lunacy. Grow up.

More hypocrisy. How many "you mad" gifs did you guys drop when obama was in office? You literally admitted yesterday that you didn't consider the names your side dropped when you called me out for doing the exact same thing. Wayne was one of the absolute worst but that was funny because libs own the board. Now you guys are in the same position conservatives were in when obama and biden won and you can't stand to receive the same type comments. Why Ford? I respect you opinion. Why is it so offensive when its done to your side but not when its the other way?

Wayne's post is childish at best and utter bullshit regardless. Him calling out any voter who disagreed with him and applying all the usual names you guys so love is what you should be calling out. The intolerance of different thought is where the focus should be. But nah, that's my teammate so its all good. You are better than that. At least I thought so. I said when this board was formed that it didn't really want conservatives posting on here. But you (meaning the board) disagreed (with certain stipulations of course) because you were so sure you were going to win the election. The election has shown that what you really want is a collective echo chamber where everyone can be cathartic and soothe each others TDS symptoms, and 5 or so conservatives you can kick around like your dogs after you lost the election. I came on here to find serious posters who actually wanted to have serious discussions about politics. Really hard to do when you see bullshit like wayne posted and 100 "yea, you tell em's). And apparently hard to do when your side isn't in political control. So, why not just put people like wayne on ignore? Well, how many would be left? I'm not much of an ignore guy anyway. Seems a little snowflaky to me but to each his own.

I apologize to the board for my insensitive, non-conforming, and disrespectful comments since the election. I will try to be a good little conservative and learn my place.

 

[CFordUNC]

More hypocrisy. How many "you mad" gifs did you guys drop when obama was in office? You literally admitted yesterday that you didn't consider the names your side dropped when you called me out for doing the exact same thing. Wayne was one of the absolute worst but that was funny because libs own the board. Now you guys are in the same position conservatives were in when obama and biden won and you can't stand to receive the same type comments. Why Ford? I respect you opinion. Why is it so offensive when its done to your side but not when its the other way?

Wayne's post is childish at best and utter bullshit regardless. Him calling out any voter who disagreed with him and applying all the usual names you guys so love is what you should be calling out. The intolerance of different thought is where the focus should be. But nah, that's my teammate so its all good. You are better than that. At least I thought so. I said when this board was formed that it didn't really want conservatives posting on here. But you (meaning the board) disagreed (with certain stipulations of course) because you were so sure you were going to win the election. The election has shown that what you really want is a collective echo chamber where everyone can be cathartic and soothe each others TDS symptoms, and 5 or so conservatives you can kick around like your dogs after you lost the election. I came on here to find serious posters who actually wanted to have serious discussions about politics. Really hard to do when you see bullshit like wayne posted and 100 "yea, you tell em's). And apparently hard to do when your side isn't in political control. So, why not just put people like wayne on ignore? Well, how many would be left? I'm not much of an ignore guy anyway. Seems a little snowflaky to me but to each his own.

I apologize to the board for my insensitive, non-conforming, and disrespectful comments since the election. I will try to be a good little conservative and learn my place.

I hear ya mayne. I reckon the difference is, I just don’t let anything said on this board negatively impact me one way or the other. I just recognize that a message board about politics is inherently going to have high emotions which can lead to bickering, arguing, insults, name-calling, and trash talking. Now, I will admit that my personality is one that relishes smack talking. So maybe I am different- and wrong- when I say that you should not let any of this stuff get to you personally. It just doesn’t get to me. None of this stuff does- no politician, no message board poster, etc. has that kind of power in my life.

I do think it’s important that I acknowledge that you are right that I don’t say anything to other posters when they are bashing or insulting conservative posters. I acknowledge that it may very well make me a hypocrite, but the reason for it is because I generally just assumed that all of us are adults here, able to handle our own business and able to return fire to anyone talking shit to us. In other words, I feel like it is not my place to police how other posters are talking to one another or to jump in and defend anyone else. I figure everyone is capable of doing that themselves. I also try very hard to not proactively talk shit to anyone, and usually only do so when someone has said something to me first or it is a poster with whom I have had longstanding antagonism. I’ll freely admit, there are a small handful of posters with whom I have lost all desire to have a reasonable conversation (you definitely are not one of them, though) and I talk smack to them accordingly. Probably makes me a hypocrite.

I also seen that because I frequent a few other political forums, including one that is far, far more conservative than I am, I just know how to do the whole “when in Rome” thing. I’m not nearly as sarcastic on that board, for example, and I specifically stick to voicing my opinion and my disagreement about policy and policy only. I purposely avoid slinging shit because I know I’m not in “home team territory.”

All of that to say, I do sincerely apologize if I have been hypocritical in how I interact with different posters on this board based on ideology. That’s certainly something I’ll try to be more mindful of moving forward.

 

[SmilingJack]

Callatoroy's favorite season is coming soon enough. Festivus!
ETA Truth is everyday is Festivus for callaboy!

 

[Callatoroy]

LOL LOL LOL. How many times have we heard "there's no way they can do this" and then they do?

It's so tempting to view Americans as rational actors. We don't even have an adequate language to describe what is happening. All that I can think of these days is Marx's saying that "history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce." That's what we are seeing. Fascism in the 1930s was the tragedy; Trump's clown show is the farce. What Marx forgot to mention-- probably because the "farce" represented to him an opportunity for resolving contradictions and speeding history along toward its next stage -- was that the farce was also a tragedy.

Anyway, I made this mistake too, despite knowing better. It's hard to avoid. I thought there was no way that Trump/Vance would do well in Springfield OH. surely people would see that Trump and Vance ruined their communities for the sake of a story. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. This era will end up humiliating every single one of us, save possibly my brother who is convinced all the time that the worst thing will happen and recent events have made his strategy like the macabre inverse of "line goes up" investing.

Anyway, nobody in the GOP has any concept of the public good. I mean, they might be able to retrieve some dusty dictionary definition from their mental cobwebs and recite it without conviction, but they never feel it. They never think deeply -- or at all -- about what the public good means, or what it might require. They were put in their positions with a combination of pure patronage and appeals to hate, so what do we expect?

May it please the board

I would like to offer a rebuttal to one of your comments if you won't be offended. Respectfully, I would suggest that "public good" is a very subjective thing. What you might consider public good, others might not agree with. For example, illegal immigration might have been an important issue to a voter (I think it was the number 2 issue behind the economy). To those voters (who were probably wrong of course) President Joe Biden hadn't shown much inclination to stem the flow of illegal immigration until late in his term. As well, VP Kamala Harris hadn't demonstrated that it was a big issue on her priority list. She said so when she made an appearance on the wonderful, enlightening, and informative show, The View. She stated that she wouldn't change one thing that President Joe Biden had done. Another example of possible disagreements of what the public good means is how the democrats had approached dealing with crime. As wrong as they might have been, its possible republicans might have viewed things like eliminating cash bail, not prosecuting shoplifting under $800 (or whatever the amount was), and reducing some felonies to misdemeanors so they wouldn't be prosecuting the socially oppressed perpetrators as not in the best interest of the public good. So in summary, given their mental limitations, republicans might have felt that being tougher on illegal immigration and crime might better serve the public good resulting in their flawed logic to vote for republicans. Please accept my apologies if my comments were out of line.

 

[Callatoroy]

Callatoroy's favorite season is coming soon enough. Festivus!
ETA Truth is everyday is Festivus for callaboy!

you are void of any humor if you don't love festivus.

 

[SmilingJack]

So when do we start voting them off the island?
This show may be better than "The Apprentice" hell Tulsi Gabby just had RT release a full on Putin please eff me compilation!
For the love of God can you please help the community more than yourself? Didn't think so.

 

[Callatoroy]

It’ll take longer. They’ll relish the violence and chaos, to start. Some are sociopaths and will enjoy it all; however, many, many of them are going to have their towns eviscerated, businesses destroyed by lack of labor and tariff costs, and friends/family/themselves caught up in the violence. I think it takes upwards of a year (maybe six months) before most of them realize the leopard has taken their nose, and is clawing at the eye.

Regardless of how insecure and retributive most of maga is, many will see the mass violence and economic quakes and start looking around nervously. Unfortunately, millions of them will also play the role of the sans-culottes.

With respect, do you think they will also wear red caps to distinguish themselves? Please accept my apology if I offended you.

 

[Callatoroy]

Roy, how have you somehow gotten even *angrier* and become even *more* victimized since your guy won an election last week? That defies conventional logic. Where’s that “joy and peace” man?

I think you mistake anger for simply calling out other's bullshit. Please tell me if you disagree but many people on here advance the idea that democrats are more educated / smarter / elite or whatever adjective you want to use. Deeper thinkers. So calling out bullshit like this seems like its my duty. What's more, this poster doesn't even see the irony in his comment:

"Anyway, nobody in the GOP has any concept of the public good. I mean, they might be able to retrieve some dusty dictionary definition from their mental cobwebs and recite it without conviction, but they never feel it. They never think deeply -- or at all -- about what the public good means, or what it might require. They were put in their positions with a combination of pure patronage and appeals to hate, so what do we expect?"

What deep thinker makes such a juvenile, 8th grade comment like that and expects to be taken seriously as a deep thinker unless surrounded by other "deep thinkers"?

More deep thinking:

"Latino men that voted for Trump? Enjoy being deported or watching a close friend or family member go through it. Stephen Miller and Donald Trump don’t want you here, whether you are here legally or not. As for the Cubans: You’re concerned about communism, so you elect an authoritarian who wants complete control over your lives. Way to think it through.

Middle class, pro-choice white women that didn’t sprint to the ballot box to vote for Kamala simply because their state doesn’t have a draconian anti-abortion law in effect? You selfish fucking assholes. Enjoy your little pocket of safety…for now. Let’s see how much you enjoy it when Trump and the Project 2025 gestapo start looking for ways to nationally ban abortions. Enjoy your new overlord, the manosphere.

Black men who voted for Trump? You macho sellouts couldn’t stomach the thought of a woman in charge, so instead you vote for the most feeble, beta male cuck imaginable. Putin and any other dictator will walk all over him. But hey, at least he’s not a weak woman, right? Fuck you guys and your BS male bravado. Forty years ago, Donald Trump wouldn’t have allowed you to rent one of his properties, and now you’re willing to grovel at his feet. Let’s see how much “better” your lives are in four years.

This idiot thinks Latino men and Black men wanted to own the libs. I'm just calling out the ignorant and deluded "deep thinkers" when they post deep thoughts because otherwise it just gets head nods.

 

[superrific]

May it please the board

I would like to offer a rebuttal to one of your comments if you won't be offended. Respectfully, I would suggest that "public good" is a very subjective thing. What you might consider public good, others might not agree with. For example, illegal immigration might have been an important issue to a voter (I think it was the number 2 issue behind the economy). To those voters (who were probably wrong of course) President Joe Biden hadn't shown much inclination to stem the flow of illegal immigration until late in his term. As well, VP Kamala Harris hadn't demonstrated that it was a big issue on her priority list. She said so when she made an appearance on the wonderful, enlightening, and informative show, The View. She stated that she wouldn't change one thing that President Joe Biden had done. Another example of possible disagreements of what the public good means is how the democrats had approached dealing with crime. As wrong as they might have been, its possible republicans might have viewed things like eliminating cash bail, not prosecuting shoplifting under $800 (or whatever the amount was), and reducing some felonies to misdemeanors so they wouldn't be prosecuting the socially oppressed perpetrators as not in the best interest of the public good. So in summary, given their mental limitations, republicans might have felt that being tougher on illegal immigration and crime might better serve the public good resulting in their flawed logic to vote for republicans. Please accept my apologies if my comments were out of line.

So the "public good" is not a formula, or a set of policies. It's an attitude and an approach to discourse. It's the idea that "we should be working together to create the best society that we can." And yes, there are always disagreements because there are always competing demands. That's why governing is hard and nobody has all the answers.

At a minimum, the idea of a public good requires good faith. That, right there, disqualifies most of the current GOP. None of them are good faith actors. Did they have a principled basis for opposing Merrick Garland? Not really. They put some together some bullshit, but then they confirmed Amy Coney Barrett. That is the opposite of thinking about the public good. Whatever the public good entails, it has to be something more than pure opportunism. It requires a set of principles to guide conduct. And without good faith, it's meaningless.

Here are some other things completely at odds with every possible conception of the public good.

A. Misinformation and disinformation.
B. Dissemination of falsehoods and lies
C. Taking credit for things you didn't do

No good society can be founded on lies. MAGA is founded on lies. MAGA is the opposite of a good society. MAGA is, in fact, little more than a BS amplification network. Stop the Steal was the grossest lie in American history since . . . well, nothing worse comes to mind off the top of my head. Gangs are not invading small towns. The US is not under attack from migrants. FEMA was not screwing Republicans in North Carolina. On and on. On this account, the GOP completely fails.

And what of the people who vote against bills, and then go to their constituents and brag about the accomplishment? Again, inconsistent with the public good. Either the project was worth doing or not. If you call it communist on the House floor, and then you celebrate its unveiling with constituents, you are trying to intentionally confuse them. That is not the basis for the public good.

And expediency is also an enemy of the public good, which is what I was addressing. If Thune caves to Trump, and lets Trump appoint whomever he wants because Thune fears being primaried, that is acting against the public good. There is nothing good that can come from unchecked executive power. If the Senate refuses to stand up to Trump, then they are creating an objectively terrible society and doing it for craven reasons.

Any more questions that I can help you with?

 

[superrific]

"Anyway, nobody in the GOP has any concept of the public good. I mean, they might be able to retrieve some dusty dictionary definition from their mental cobwebs and recite it without conviction, but they never feel it. They never think deeply -- or at all -- about what the public good means, or what it might require. They were put in their positions with a combination of pure patronage and appeals to hate, so what do we expect?"

What deep thinker makes such a juvenile, 8th grade comment like that and expects to be taken seriously as a deep thinker unless surrounded by other "deep thinkers"?

Once again, you don't even understand timeouts, and you're casting aspersions at my abilities. Any time you have a point to make, you're free to make it. Dismissing a well-reasoned argument by calling it juvenile and 8th grade is, in fact, the actual 8th grade behavior.

Your inferiority complex and jealousy of me is pretty pathetic.

 

[uncsig]

What do you think was the intent of this nomination?

Some theories I've thought of.

1. It is just Trump trolling the DOJ and the left.
2. Trump identifies with Gaetz, has no problem with his severe moral and ethical flaws, and simply wants him as leader of the DOJ.
3. Trump is planning on doing terrible things and has vetted Gaetz and knows he is one of the few who would follow through with these things.
4. This is a loyalty test for senators. If they confirm Gaetz, that is a signal to Trump that he can do anything he wants and definitely a signal that he could not be impeached.

2-4

 

[uncsig]

Not sure where this question belongs, so I'll stick it here:

Do we know the various state protocols for replacing the Senators and Representatives who get confirmed? Special elections? Governor appointments? Other scenarios?

Any chance of flipping either the House or Senate if Trump picks off enough current Pubs?

 

[Zoo_View]

Not sure where this question belongs, so I'll stick it here:

Do we know the various state protocols for replacing the Senators and Representatives who get confirmed? Special elections? Governor appointments? Other scenarios?

Any chance of flipping either the House or Senate if Trump picks off enough current Pubs?

• In New York, a special election for Elise Stefani’s seat has to be held within a relatively short time of her resignation (2-3 months). Her seat is DEEP RED. No chance at flipping it in a special election. Special elections for US House in New York happen relatively quickly because no primary is held - the parties pick their nominees.
• Rubio’s senate seat. Florida’s Governor appoints a replacement. A special election must be held in November 2026 to fill the seat for its remaining two years. DeSantis can name anyone - a key aide, his wife, himself. If he names himself, he resigns as Governor and the Trumplican Cubana Lt. Governor becomes Governor. The Democrats have no challenger for the seat.
• Congressman Mike Waltz (FL) and Congressman Matt Gaetz (FL) - it’ll take about 6 months to fill each seat. They have to have a primary and a general election - that entails mailing overseas ballots. Waltz’s District is DeSantis’s old district. It’s DEEP RED. Gaetz’s District is also DEEP RED.

 

[superrific]

Not sure where this question belongs, so I'll stick it here:

Do we know the various state protocols for replacing the Senators and Representatives who get confirmed? Special elections? Governor appointments? Other scenarios?

Any chance of flipping either the House or Senate if Trump picks off enough current Pubs?

Well, first the House could flip from vacancies alone. I don't know what the expected count is at the moment, but let's say it would be 218-216. Take three Pubs out and you get a Dem majority.

And yes, the Dems could flip one of these seats. Stefanik's is most likely. It's not a great chance, but it's non-zero.

 

[superrific]

• No chance at flipping it in a special election.

Special elections can produce interesting and unexpected results. Within the last 15 years, a Pub won Mass and a Dem won AL. Both Senators were promptly defeated in the general election, but turnout in special elections is low and motivation looms large.

If Trump fucks up like we think he will (and already is, really), then a Dem absolutely could take Stefanik's seat. Combine a) Dems having high-propensity voters these days; b) anger at Trump; and c) some voters either sitting it out or going Dem as the country goes to hell and an upset is entirely possible.

I wouldn't necessarily bet a lot of money on it, but there it is.

 

[Zoo_View]

Special elections can produce interesting and unexpected results. Within the last 15 years, a Pub won Mass and a Dem won AL. Both Senators were promptly defeated in the general election, but turnout in special elections is low and motivation looms large.

If Trump fucks up like we think he will (and already is, really), then a Dem absolutely could take Stefanik's seat. Combine a) Dems having high-propensity voters these days; b) anger at Trump; and c) some voters either sitting it out or going Dem as the country goes to hell and an upset is entirely possible.

I wouldn't necessarily bet a lot of money on it, but there it is.

Stefanik will likely need to remain in Congress until the Speaker vote……which is January 3rd.

She’ll resign as soon as the Republican Speaker is chosen UNLESS the GOP has an insurmountable lead in the House well before Jan. 3, 2025.

That means that 90 days later, the Special Election is held……so, no later than Tuesday, April 15; but, likely possible by Tuesday, April 8.

Stefanik won re-election 62-38. Her opponent, Paula Collins, has told Democratic leaders she wants to run again. Democratic Assemblyman Billy Jones (incumbent from the Plattsburgh area) might be running (he sounds like he is).

The Trump Administration and the Trumplicans are certainly going to eff up left-and-right; the consequences of that effing around and finding out won’t happen by April 2025.

Stefanik’s seat is safe barring the NY GOP nominating a pedophile AND the Democrats nominating a Barack Obama.

 

[superrific]

Stefanik will likely need to remain in Congress until the Speaker vote……which is January 3rd.

She’ll resign as soon as the Republican Speaker is chosen UNLESS the GOP has an insurmountable lead in the House well before Jan. 3, 2025.

That means that 90 days later, the Special Election is held……so, no later than Tuesday, April 15; but, likely possible by Tuesday, April 8.

Stefanik won re-election 62-38. Her opponent, Paula Collins, has told Democratic leaders she wants to run again. Democratic Assemblyman Billy Jones (incumbent from the Plattsburgh area) might be running (he sounds like he is).

The Trump Administration and the Trumplicans are certainly going to eff up left-and-right; the consequences of that effing around and finding out won’t happen by April 2025.

Stefanik’s seat is safe barring the NY GOP nominating a pedophile AND the Democrats nominating a Barack Obama.

We'll see, I guess.

 

[nycfan]

 

[DiehardHeelFan]

 

[wmheel1287]

So grotesque. He's a statutory rapist and we all know it. We don't think it. We know it. I absolutely challenge anyone how his appointment can be defensible in any way. Therefore, how can the person who appointed him be defended in any way?