Political cartoon and meme thread for both sides of the spectrum.

[CHEEZY17]

So what would have happened if 100% of your party didnt vote for it?

The government would’ve shut down without Democrats voting for the CR.

I guess I should have been more specific: What would have happened if 100% of Democrats didnt join with the MAGA group?

[dot]

I guess I should have been more specific: What would have happened if 100% of Democrats didnt join with the MAGA group?

We were talking about the CR. The one that needed Democrats to keep the government from shutting down because the GOP and its leader reneged on the deal for the budget, and then said leader tried to blame the Democrats for failing to keep his party in order. If you want to talk about why McCarthy got ousted, then see previous posts where he bargained away the strength of the office just for attaining the title of Speaker and then refer back to stabbing Democrats in the back.

[saltydog]

So what would have happened if 100% of your party didnt vote for it?

The government would’ve shut down without Democrats voting for the CR.

I guess I should have been more specific: What would have happened if 100% of Democrats didnt join with the MAGA group?

Why was it the responsibility of Democrats to save McCarthy?

His party has the majority. It's on him for not having control.

Make fun of Pelosi all you want, but she was able to maintain control of her Caucus without having to negotiate a "vacate the Speakership" rule.

[CHEEZY17]

I guess I should have been more specific: What would have happened if 100% of Democrats didnt join with the MAGA group?

We were talking about the CR. The one that needed Democrats to keep the government from shutting down because the GOP and its leader reneged on the deal for the budget, and then said leader tried to blame the Democrats for failing to keep his party in order. If you want to talk about why McCarthy got ousted, then see previous posts where he bargained away the strength of the office just for attaining the title of Speaker and then refer back to stabbing Democrats in the back.

Thats great but doesnt really answer the question that was asked. Lets try it again, eh? This time I'll word it a bit differently to help you focus your response. Try to focus on what is actually being asked and formulate your response based solely on that instead of a word salad that doesnt address the actual question.
"What would have been the result in the US House of Representatives if the entire Democrat caucus hadnt voted (to vacate the speaker position) with the small group of "radical" Republicans?"

[dot]

Thats great but doesnt really answer the question that was asked. Lets try it again, eh? This time I'll word it a bit differently to help you focus your response. Try to focus on what is actually being asked and formulate your response based solely on that instead of a word salad that doesnt address the actual question.
"What would have been the result in the US House of Representatives if the entire Democrat caucus hadnt voted (to vacate the speaker position) with the small group of "radical" Republicans?"

Oh, are you about to throw another tantrum because I am not arguing what you want me to argue? Guess that's your common theme. So if you want to blame someone for what your radical caucus did, look within instead of blaming the party that is actually doing their jobs.

[CHEEZY17]

Thats great but doesnt really answer the question that was asked. Lets try it again, eh? This time I'll word it a bit differently to help you focus your response. Try to focus on what is actually being asked and formulate your response based solely on that instead of a word salad that doesnt address the actual question.
"What would have been the result in the US House of Representatives if the entire Democrat caucus hadnt voted (to vacate the speaker position) with the small group of "radical" Republicans?"

Oh, are you about to throw another tantrum because I am not arguing what you want me to argue? Guess that's your common theme. So if you want to blame someone for what your radical caucus did, look within instead of blaming the party that is actually doing their jobs.

Im just asking you a question about the topic, homeschool. No one is asking you to argue anything. Surely you have an answer, right? I mean you either know the answer or you dont. Its cool if you dont know.

[Animal]

Thats great but doesnt really answer the question that was asked. Lets try it again, eh? This time I'll word it a bit differently to help you focus your response. Try to focus on what is actually being asked and formulate your response based solely on that instead of a word salad that doesnt address the actual question.
"What would have been the result in the US House of Representatives if the entire Democrat caucus hadnt voted (to vacate the speaker position) with the small group of "radical" Republicans?"

Oh, are you about to throw another tantrum because I am not arguing what you want me to argue? Guess that's your common theme. So if you want to blame someone for what your radical caucus did, look within instead of blaming the party that is actually doing their jobs.

Im just asking you a question about the topic, homeschool. No one is asking you to argue anything. Surely you have an answer, right? I mean you either know the answer or you dont. Its cool if you dont know.

he's too busy watching other branches of the government function to spend time worrying about outcomes that could have kept this branch running.

[saltydog]

Thats great but doesnt really answer the question that was asked. Lets try it again, eh? This time I'll word it a bit differently to help you focus your response. Try to focus on what is actually being asked and formulate your response based solely on that instead of a word salad that doesnt address the actual question.
"What would have been the result in the US House of Representatives if the entire Democrat caucus hadnt voted (to vacate the speaker position) with the small group of "radical" Republicans?"

Oh, are you about to throw another tantrum because I am not arguing what you want me to argue? Guess that's your common theme. So if you want to blame someone for what your radical caucus did, look within instead of blaming the party that is actually doing their jobs.

Im just asking you a question about the topic, homeschool. No one is asking you to argue anything. Surely you have an answer, right? I mean you either know the answer or you dont. Its cool if you dont know.

he's too busy watching other branches of the government function to spend time worrying about outcomes that could have kept this branch running.

The only branch that's not functioning is the one controlled by the GOP.

Even the Supreme KKKourt is still doing business.

[Animal]

Thats great but doesnt really answer the question that was asked. Lets try it again, eh? This time I'll word it a bit differently to help you focus your response. Try to focus on what is actually being asked and formulate your response based solely on that instead of a word salad that doesnt address the actual question.
"What would have been the result in the US House of Representatives if the entire Democrat caucus hadnt voted (to vacate the speaker position) with the small group of "radical" Republicans?"

Oh, are you about to throw another tantrum because I am not arguing what you want me to argue? Guess that's your common theme. So if you want to blame someone for what your radical caucus did, look within instead of blaming the party that is actually doing their jobs.

Im just asking you a question about the topic, homeschool. No one is asking you to argue anything. Surely you have an answer, right? I mean you either know the answer or you dont. Its cool if you dont know.

he's too busy watching other branches of the government function to spend time worrying about outcomes that could have kept this branch running.

The only branch that's not functioning is the one controlled by the GOP.

Even the Supreme KKKourt is still doing business.

man, you have really flown off into your own little Lefty Qanon, haven't you?

[saltydog]

Thats great but doesnt really answer the question that was asked. Lets try it again, eh? This time I'll word it a bit differently to help you focus your response. Try to focus on what is actually being asked and formulate your response based solely on that instead of a word salad that doesnt address the actual question.
"What would have been the result in the US House of Representatives if the entire Democrat caucus hadnt voted (to vacate the speaker position) with the small group of "radical" Republicans?"

Oh, are you about to throw another tantrum because I am not arguing what you want me to argue? Guess that's your common theme. So if you want to blame someone for what your radical caucus did, look within instead of blaming the party that is actually doing their jobs.

Im just asking you a question about the topic, homeschool. No one is asking you to argue anything. Surely you have an answer, right? I mean you either know the answer or you dont. Its cool if you dont know.

he's too busy watching other branches of the government function to spend time worrying about outcomes that could have kept this branch running.

The only branch that's not functioning is the one controlled by the GOP.

Even the Supreme KKKourt is still doing business.

man, you have really flown off into your own little Lefty Qanon, haven't you?

Judicial Branch- Packed with unqualified or agenda driven GOP nominees, still operating

Executive Branch- Biden, despite age, has been attempting to perform duties about as best as he can. (Have you ever had to try to put out multiple fires set by previous inhabitants?)

Legislative Branch- Senate (controlled by Democrats) patiently waiting for spending package to arrive to allow the government to function
Legislative Branch- House ("controlled" by Republicans) patiently waiting for someone....anyone...to actually qualify.... nevermind.

[Animal]

Legislative Branch- House ("controlled" by Republicans) patiently waiting for someone....anyone...to actually qualify.... nevermind.

Gee, I wonder which party voted to cause that to happen?

[saltydog]

Legislative Branch- House ("controlled" by Republicans) patiently waiting for someone....anyone...to actually qualify.... nevermind.

Gee, I wonder which party voted to cause that to happen?

Republicans.

They negotiated the deal with McCarthy, he accepted terms.

They also represented the single member who filed the motion to vacate.

You have to be some special kind of idiot to think the Democrats wouldn't take advantage of removing a guy who isn't worth saving. Again, if the sides were flipped (which is a situation you REFUSE to consider) it would still be the fault of the majority party.

[Animal]

Legislative Branch- House ("controlled" by Republicans) patiently waiting for someone....anyone...to actually qualify.... nevermind.

Gee, I wonder which party voted to cause that to happen?

Republicans.

They negotiated the deal with McCarthy, he accepted terms.

They also represented the single member who filed the motion to vacate.

You have to be some special kind of idiot to think the Democrats wouldn't take advantage of removing a guy who isn't worth saving. Again, if the sides were flipped (which is a situation you REFUSE to consider) it would still be the fault of the majority party.

So 100% of the democratic members of the house voted to vacate the speaker and put one branch of government out of business. got it. thanks.

[saltydog]

Legislative Branch- House ("controlled" by Republicans) patiently waiting for someone....anyone...to actually qualify.... nevermind.

Gee, I wonder which party voted to cause that to happen?

Republicans.

They negotiated the deal with McCarthy, he accepted terms.

They also represented the single member who filed the motion to vacate.

You have to be some special kind of idiot to think the Democrats wouldn't take advantage of removing a guy who isn't worth saving. Again, if the sides were flipped (which is a situation you REFUSE to consider) it would still be the fault of the majority party.

So 100% of the democratic members of the house voted to vacate the speaker and put one branch of government out of business. got it. thanks.

How about when you see something burning down beyond repair, sometimes it okay to just let nature take its course?

I can't imagine how you handle lack of finite responsibility in everyday life.

[Animal]

How about when you see something burning down beyond repair, sometimes it okay to just let nature take its course?

I can't imagine how you handle lack of finite responsibility in everyday life.

When I see something burning down that I care about, I drop whatever I am doing and try to stop it.

When I see something burning down that I don't give a fuck about, I let it burn and say good riddance.

Is that what you mean?

[saltydog]

How about when you see something burning down beyond repair, sometimes it okay to just let nature take its course?

I can't imagine how you handle lack of finite responsibility in everyday life.

When I see something burning down that I care about, I drop whatever I am doing and try to stop it.

When I see something burning down that I don't give a fuck about, I let it burn and say good riddance.

Is that what you mean?

Having this conversation with someone that couldn't fathom how overstating/understating assets constitutes fraud is going about as expected.

[Animal]

How about when you see something burning down beyond repair, sometimes it okay to just let nature take its course?

I can't imagine how you handle lack of finite responsibility in everyday life.

When I see something burning down that I care about, I drop whatever I am doing and try to stop it.

When I see something burning down that I don't give a fuck about, I let it burn and say good riddance.

Is that what you mean?

Having this conversation with someone that couldn't fathom how overstating/understating assets constitutes fraud is going about as expected.

its hard not to point out how stupid you are in any conversation.

but, I agree with you. The Democrats proved they don't give any fucks about the House by their actions on how they voted with Matt Gantz. Gantz might have lit the match, but they threw it.

[dot]

its hard not to point out how stupid you are in any conversation.

but, I agree with you. The Democrats proved they don't give any fucks about the House by their actions on how they voted with Matt Gantz. Gantz might have lit the match, but they threw it.

Remind us again how Democrats are supposed to save Republicans from themselves so you and your elected leaders can continue to ignore personal responsibility.

[Animal]

its hard not to point out how stupid you are in any conversation.

but, I agree with you. The Democrats proved they don't give any fucks about the House by their actions on how they voted with Matt Gantz. Gantz might have lit the match, but they threw it.

Remind us again how Democrats are supposed to save Republicans from themselves so you and your elected leaders can continue to ignore personal responsibility.

here's a thought. if this is just a game of trying to make the other side look bad. then what incentive would the republicans have right now of doing anything to elect a speaker and get the House moving? Why wouldn't they just drag this out for as long as they can?

[dot]

here's a thought. if this is just a game of trying to make the other side look bad. then what incentive would the republicans have right now of doing anything to elect a speaker and get the House moving? Why wouldn't they just drag this out for as long as they can?

So you're going to pretend this rhetoric about blaming Democrats for Republican infighting is not just another political game you guys have been playing? Yeah ok.

There are many reasons they don't want to drag this out. For one, they know what a shutdown does to our economy and they lost that fight to blame the opposition party for it because the opposition party in charge of the rest of the government did their jobs. The only one who didn't do it, like always, was their own. The public already knows the GOP can't govern, so they don't need an ever fresh reminder going into the next election. Two, bought and paid for by big money who will also get hurt by a shut down, whether that's as complicated as government services ceasing or simple as market instability. If they don't do their job to keep the status quo going, the campaign contributions stop. Big money wants the machine to keep running. Three, personal power and ego like always. Jordan has no business being anywhere near an elected seat of office let alone being the top one in the House and yet he is pushing for it in despicable ways. Depending on the next contestant, three can change or go away if an actual honorable candidate is selected but pickings seem to be slim. Four, redirecting away from the fact of GOP can't govern. Right now, that's being proven everyday, their only shot at distracting from that is to start doing the work so they can legitimately point somewhere else for the blame game come election time. Should I keep going?

[Animal]

here's a thought. if this is just a game of trying to make the other side look bad. then what incentive would the republicans have right now of doing anything to elect a speaker and get the House moving? Why wouldn't they just drag this out for as long as they can?

So you're going to pretend this rhetoric about blaming Democrats for Republican infighting is not just another political game you guys have been playing? Yeah ok.

There are many reasons they don't want to drag this out. For one, they know what a shutdown does to our economy and they lost that fight to blame the opposition party for it because the opposition party in charge of the rest of the government did their jobs. The only one who didn't do it, like always, was their own. The public already knows the GOP can't govern, so they don't need an ever fresh reminder going into the next election. Two, bought and paid for by big money who will also get hurt by a shut down, whether that's as complicated as government services ceasing or simple as market instability. If they don't do their job to keep the status quo going, the campaign contributions stop. Big money wants the machine to keep running. Three, personal power and ego like always. Jordan has no business being anywhere near an elected seat of office let alone being the top one in the House and yet he is pushing for it in despicable ways. Depending on the next contestant, three can change or go away if an actual honorable candidate is selected but pickings seem to be slim. Four, redirecting away from the fact of GOP can't govern. Right now, that's being proven everyday, their only shot at distracting from that is to start doing the work so they can legitimately point somewhere else for the blame game come election time. Should I keep going?

in other words, if this is simply a game to make the other side look bad, then there is ZERO incentive to get a speaker nominated and let the house appropriate money. After all, that's exactly what Matt Gantz wanted. He wants to end all funding to Ukraine and he wants to CUT the budget, not balance the budget.

You guys voted with him. So, let's just let that be the path we take. There's no easier way to stop spending than to actually have no way to spend in the first place. Yall voted it that way, so let's try it out a while.

[Biker]

How about when you see something burning down beyond repair, sometimes it okay to just let nature take its course?

I can't imagine how you handle lack of finite responsibility in everyday life.

When I see something burning down that I care about, I drop whatever I am doing and try to stop it.

When I see something burning down that I don't give a fuck about, I let it burn and say good riddance.

Is that what you mean?

Having this conversation with someone that couldn't fathom how overstating/understating assets constitutes fraud is going about as expected.

You do understand that the judge did exactly that, right?

[CHEEZY17]

I see dot is back and dodging yet another simple question. Fucking cowardice on full display once again.
4% of "radical" Republicans cant do jack shit on their own.
What would be happening right now in The House, dot, if the entire Democrat caucus didnt side with MAGAs and vote to oust McCarthy?
96% of the R's voted to keep things moving. 100% of Democrats voted with 4% of "radical" Republicans and this is where we are as a result of Democrat votes. Not Republican votes because 96% of R's didnt want this. YOU did. Own it.

[dot]

in other words, if this is simply a game to make the other side look bad, then there is ZERO incentive to get a speaker nominated and let the house appropriate money. After all, that's exactly what Matt Gantz wanted. He wants to end all funding to Ukraine and he wants to CUT the budget, not balance the budget.

You guys voted with him. So, let's just let that be the path we take. There's no easier way to stop spending than to actually have no way to spend in the first place. Yall voted it that way, so let's try it out a while.

At some point, you're going to have to take responsibility for your party not getting your reps under control and allowing them to sabotage their own majority. Democrats are not required to save you guys from yourselves, they did their jobs. McCarthy gave away the keys, and until your party loses their ill-gotten seats, they are still going to be "the majority" so they have to fix themselves. Democrats can't do it for them, hell if Democrats lift a finger to help you guys, it just makes you dig your heels in even more and sabotage more of this country's government. So now you have to deal with what you created, figure out how to put your fringe where they belong, get a speaker with integrity and a spine and enough brains to know he can't govern as is without bipartisan support. And y'all are on the clock to do it all before your infighting costs your benefactors their profit margins.

[CHEEZY17]

Fucking disingenuous hack.