The Party of personal responsibility?

[Aris Katsaris]

Trump's done, his kids might be another matter. As it is, there are too many things up in the air at present to even begin to predict what 2024 is going to look like politically right now.

I don't care about his kids one way or another. I'm pretty sure they are bad people, yes, but there are lots of horrible people that can take up the mantle of Trumpism. (If I were to analyze this further I'd say the fact they have the name of Trump may mean that they wouldn't need be so much Trump-like as someone who doesn't share the name, in order to appeal to Donald Trump's voters).

Let the federal investigators and prosecutors do their jobs and have their day in court, not congress, and convict him there. That will be when justice is getting served. Everything else is theater.

Do you feel that about the impeachment process in general, that it's useless? Should there be a constitutional amendment to remove it from existence?

[Grant]

Depending on where the Democrats go in the next couple of years, 2024 could be a very good Romney year unless a major third party has entered the scene by then.

I think the key here is what the Democratic party looks like and does over the next four years.  If there are no disasters, Harris might actually have a shot, though she will probably have to deal with some sort of primary. 

Not sure if Romney wants to run again, and he might not be able to win a general election because he can't bring out the nutters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Michigan. 

[TheDeamon]

I also think people need to worry about generational Trumps. I mean, its not exactly the Hand of Oberon, but I could see Don Jr and Ivanka stepping into the legacy.

Ivanka was a registered Democrat up through 2016, so her political platform is likely to be different from her father's in any number of ways.

Trump Jr is the one to beware of on the political scene from what I've seen. Assuming the Trump organization survives the onslaught that is coming for them in the next 4 years, he'd probably have a decent chance in 2024, it's just a question of if Senior could check his ego enough to allow his son to step forward instead.

[TheDeamon]

Let the federal investigators and prosecutors do their jobs and have their day in court, not congress, and convict him there. That will be when justice is getting served. Everything else is theater.

to
Do you feel that about the impeachment process in general, that it's useless? Should there be a constitutional amendment to remove it from existence?

Impeachment exists to remove federal officials from office to ensure they can do no further harm with their position, and in the case of the President, to enable prosecutorial efforts to proceed unimpeded.

Trump isn't in office anymore, so there is no need to remove him from it as he longer holds an office where he can cause further official harms through abuse of office.

Impeachment of Trump at this time is pointless. Impeachment in general serves a purpose, but that purpose is not what they are now trying to use it for.

[LetterRip]

Conviction subsequent to impeachment also ensures they can't hold federal office in the future and lose their federal benefits.  So it absolutely something that is not pointless.

[TheDeamon]

Conviction subsequent to impeachment also ensures they can't hold federal office in the future and lose their federal benefits.  So it absolutely something that is not pointless.

Trump isn't eligible for retirement as he doesn't have 6 years of Federal Service. And you need to remember that "court of standing" for impeachment matters is the United States Senate, which means the power of Clemency also rests exists in the Senate. So whatever today's Senate enacts, another subsequent Senate can also undo(and that act would be final absent a new trial for a different offense). And the penalty is "no more than" removal of eligibility hold federal office again. There is a Democrat in the House of Representatives right now who was formally impeached and convicted as a Federal Judge, and is currently holding a Federal Elected Office.

[Grant]

Trump's done, his kids might be another matter. As it is, there are too many things up in the air at present to even begin to predict what 2024 is going to look like politically right now.

Well that's no fun. 

Republican Presidential Possibles in 2024. Ranked by liklihood of running and Trumpiness. 

Name                      Liklihood                T-Rating

Mike Pence                 65%                       65%
Ted Cruz                    85%                        75%
Josh Hawley                 75%                      75%
Tom Cotton                 75%                       65%
Nikki Haley                 80%                       60%
Mitt Romney                35%                        0%
Ron DeSantis                70%                      80%
Marco Rubio                 65%                       70%
Ben Sasse                     25%                       30%
Ivanka Trump               20%                       90%
Trump Jr                      30%                       95%
Charlie Baker                 35%                      0%
Cocaine Mitch                  0%                       50%
Lindsay Graham             35%                       60%

*Trumpiness Rating is a combination of how often and how loudly a Republican agrees or disagrees with L'Orange's statements, policy or otherwise, how often they defend his more flavorful actions and statements, and a general survey of negative character traits they might share with the Perfect Caller.

[Wayward Son]

And the penalty is "no more than" removal of eligibility hold federal office again.

Although the penalty of being convinced is removal from office, adding the penalty of barring Trump from ever holding office is easily added, and only needs a majority of the Senate to vote for it.

[Aris Katsaris]

Impeachment exists to remove federal officials from office to ensure they can do no further harm with their position, and in the case of the President, to enable prosecutorial efforts to proceed unimpeded.

If that's the only purpose, why does the constitution then also specify the power to disqualify impeached & convicted officials from further holding office?

When the US constitution was being written, the British empire was in the process of impeaching the *former* governor-general of India.

And John Quincy Adams said in 1846 (after leaving office) "I hold myself, so long as I have the breath of life in my body, amenable to impeachment by this House for everything I did during the time I held any public office,"

[TheDeamon]

If that's the only purpose, why does the constitution then also specify the power to disqualify impeached & convicted officials from further holding office?

When the US constitution was being written, the British empire was in the process of impeaching the *former* governor-general of India.

And John Quincy Adams said in 1846 (after leaving office) "I hold myself, so long as I have the breath of life in my body, amenable to impeachment by this House for everything I did during the time I held any public office,"

At that point, I think the provision should be "If already out of office, and convicted in a court of law for wrong-doing while in office, impeachment for the purpose of barring the person from holding office in the future" would be on the table. But honestly, after a criminal conviction, the odds of being able to hold a high public office in the future are pretty slim.

[Grant]

But honestly, after a criminal conviction, the odds of being able to hold a high public office in the future are pretty slim.

We've already been down this road.  Probably no chance of a criminal conviction of incitement.  Impeachment is a political trial, not a criminal trial.  You can impeach for behaviors not criminal.  Lying to Congress.  Running around naked in the White House.  Telling the leader of a allied nation to "*censored* off".  Utilizing the office for personal gain.  Leaning on state politicians to overturn election results.  Getting a mob riled up that then goes to storm the capitol. 

Most of these things are not criminal actions.  It's particularly difficult to prosecute the POTUS for criminal actions.  That's what impeachment is for. 

Now, if you're talking about later state convictions for crimes committed before or even during the Presidency, that's different.  Not sure it completely bars someone from running for the Presidency again, though. 

[msquared]

The one good thing from an impeachment is that Trump would never be able to hold office again.

[Aris Katsaris]

The one good thing from an impeachment is that Trump would never be able to hold office again.

Besides that, there's also the more general benefit that this sort of action should be punished. If Trump had resigned in acknowledgement of his misdeed, perhaps an impeachment trial wouldn't have been needed. Now it is, because he has suffered no punishment.

If it's not punishable, then it's allowed. Do we want EVERY president to keep doing what Trump did? For that matter what if the next president (or for that matter the current president) has a VP who agrees to just throw out any electoral votes their president doesn't like, while a mob outside cheers President & VP on, as they overturn the election?

[kidv]

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/01/viral-tweet-distorts-facts-on-consequences-of-impeachment/

I think this is what people are thinking of - potential of removal presidential pension and travel allowance.  Helpful fact check article.

TLDR:  Conviction in the senate, not just impeachment, could potentially result in barring from future office, and removal of pension, staff, and benefits provided by the former presidents act.  Removal of secret service detail falls under a different heading.  Difference of opinion on whether conviction after person has left office will allow for imposition of removal of pension, etc.

[TheDeamon]

The one good thing from an impeachment is that Trump would never be able to hold office again.

Here's the problem, and you're trying to have it both ways on this.

If you believe in rule of law, but don't believe you can convict in a court of law, so you'll use a political court to achieve your goals instead.

You don't support the rule of law, you support rule by fiat.

If you believe in the people being able to make their own choices through the use of democratic processes. Then you cannot support using Impeachment as a mechanism to prevent someone from running for office again. That should be a decision made by the voters, not 218 members of the House and 67 members of the Senate.

If you support impeaching Trump simply because you're afraid he could run for office again and win, then you don't support Democracy either.

If you don't think Trump is going to be able to win a Presidential race again in the future, then why are you impeaching him after he left office?

[msquared]

TheDemon

this is not a legal proceeding. This is a political one. Why did the Founding Father's even put impeachment in the Constitution?  Maybe because they feared just what is happening now.

You are holding this to a different standard. This is a civil trial, not criminal. He will not go to jail, he will not pay any fines.  So your comparison to the rule of law is weak.

We can remove someone from the ability to run for office.  The Constitution allows for that. You conservatives keep talking about the constitution, but these things are right from it. This is exactly the type of situation this was set up to deal with.

[Aris Katsaris]

If you support impeaching Trump simply because you're afraid he could run for office again and win, then you don't support Democracy either.

If you don't think Trump is going to be able to win a Presidential race again in the future, then why are you impeaching him after he left office?

Your first objection would only be valid, if you are willing to argue that ANY restriction on who is to be presidential candidate is undemocratic. This would include the 2-term limit (Obama not being able to run again is undemocratic), birthplace restrictions (Schwartzenegger not being able to run is undemocratic), age limitations (why only 35+ year olds?) or for that matter citizenship (why shouldn't Pope Francis or the Dalai Lama be allowed to run for the US presidency)

That some people are disqualified because they've been impeached and convicted is no worse than any of the above disqualifications and better than some.

In regards to your question, Trump has shown us that he does NOT respect the outcome of an election,  and he will seek to overthrow democracy if he loses an election. We don't want him to keep trying this next time, until he eventually succeeds in overthrowing democracy by lies and violence. He failed to respect the democratic process, so he must now be barred from it, same as any other dictator or dictator-wannabe.

[Grant]

Here's the problem, and you're trying to have it both ways on this.

If you believe in rule of law, but don't believe you can convict in a court of law, so you'll use a political court to achieve your goals instead.

You don't support the rule of law, you support rule by fiat.

Jeez, man.  Impeachment IS THE LAW.  It is part of the highest law.  It's IN THE CONSTITUTION!  It's purpose was described BY THE FRAMERS.  There are all kinds of courts and trials and laws that deal with things outside the the criminal realm.  Impeachment isn't rule by fiat.  IT TAKES 66% OF THE SENATE!  That's the exact opposite of rule by fiat! Jeez. 

If you believe in the people being able to make their own choices through the use of democratic processes. Then you cannot support using Impeachment as a mechanism to prevent someone from running for office again. That should be a decision made by the voters, not 218 members of the House and 67 members of the Senate.

The whole constitution.  The whole government.  Is built upon the bedrock of the idea of protecting individuals from the democratic process of mob rule, while still having an effective and functional government.  To get there, you have to start and the unavoidable premise that people are stupid, and that a whole bunch of people can be stupid at the same time.  That was the whole problem of democracy.  That was the problem to solve.  That's why the POTUS was never supposed to be elected by popular vote.  That's why there was always supposed to be a bicameral legislature with an upper house that originally was not appointed by the people.  That's why separation of powers and checks and balances.  The Senate REPRESENTS the people of the states.  If they decided that somebody should be barred from further political office, then they are doing what they were appointed by the people to do!  That's their job. 

If you support impeaching Trump simply because you're afraid he could run for office again and win, then you don't support Democracy either.

Pish posh!  I guess that makes me a supporter of Republicanism.  You know, representative government.  I suppose that doesn't count as democracy anymore.  It's like I'm taking crazy pills. I'm in bizzaro world. 

If you don't think Trump is going to be able to win a Presidential race again in the future, then why are you impeaching him after he left office?

Because it's justice.  I don't throw a bank robber in jail after he got both his legs amputated from a car wreck he sustained in his getaway because I'm worried about him robbing more banks.  I'm doing it because it's just. 

[TheDrake]

That's like saying you don't support democracy if you don't let Schwarzenegger run for office. There are rules, they involve conduct, competency, and danger to the country. Is the 25th amendment allowing the removal of a President by the cabinet a violation of democracy? This is not Nam, there are rules.

[NobleHunter]

The other problem is saying "just convict him in the courts" is that what is impeachable is not necessarily illegal. Barring someone from further public office for speech made while President is a much different thing than arresting them for speech made while President. Especially if they are prosecuted as if they were just a private citizen. The President has to be held to a higher standard than private citizens and the courts can't be the place to enforce that standard.

As nice as it would be to see Trump go to prison, I'm not sure there's evidence of sufficiently criminal activity.

[msquared]

I guess his one defense would be to finally supply all of the evidence he has of fraud in the 4-5 states he has claimed massive voter fraud in. But since that didn't happen, he has no defense.

[rightleft22]

I guess his one defense would be to finally supply all of the evidence he has of fraud in the 4-5 states he has claimed massive voter fraud in. But since that didn't happen, he has no defense.

But its the lack of evidence that is evidence of fraud! Ergo case closed. Ergo is legalese like language so my reasoning is unassailable, everyone says so. Those that don't are sad. Ok that might imply that not everyone says so... but... squirrel

The DNC, which can't stop tripping over there own dicks at every opportunity, are so devilishly clever...

[Grant]

Liz Cheney won the vote to keep her leadership position, 146 to 61.  30% of the House Republicans voted to remove her.  70% voted against.  It probably helped that the voting was done by secret ballot.

McCarthy has meanwhile stated that he will not be removing Greene from the Education and Labor Committee. 

Cue Marty Haugen's "All Are Welcome". 

The primary message coming from McCarthy?  Staying united against the Democrats.  Underlying message?  Trump is done and over.  Turn the page. 

[Grant]

RINO Deep State Traitor Ben Sasse shows his true elitist tuna tartar eating wine swilling colors when the righteous Republican Party of Nebraska threatens to justly censure him:

Message to Nebraska GOP State Central Committee
Hey Guys. I want to talk to the members of the state central committee.

I’ve heard from many of you in the days since the attack on the Capitol -threatening another censure…for what I said about the president’s lies after the election.

As a friend and fellow Republican, I wanna shoot straight: I'm not gonna spend any time trying to talk you out of another censure.
I listen to Nebraskans every day, and very few of them are as angry about life as some of the people on this Committee - not all of you, but a lot. Political addicts don’t represent most Nebraska conservatives.

When Melissa and I first ran, back in 2014, we spoke with hundreds of thousands across this gorgeous state. And we promised to speak out when our leaders – not just Democrats, but any leader in either party -crossed the line. We pledged to put the Constitution ahead of party politics. You gave me standing ovations.

My Election Night speech – the first time I ever ran for or got elected to anything – was a simple promise that I'd “always vote my conscience, even if it might be against the stream.” You cheered.

But many of the same party officials who applauded in '14, cussed me out in '16 when I refused to vote for Candidate Trump; and again when I declined to serve on his reelection committee in '19; and again when I didn't vote for his reelection in '20.

Now, many of you are hacked off that I condemned his lies that led to a riot.

Let's be clear: the anger in this state party has never been about me violating principle or abandoning conservative policy -- I'm one of the most conservative voters in the Senate -- the anger's always been simply about me not bending the knee to...one guy.
But my disagreements with President Trump have never been personal -they've always been about my genuine affection for the Constitutional order, something every American regardless of party should share.

January 6th is gonna leave a scar. For 220 years, one of the most beautiful things about America has been our peaceful transfer of power. But what Americans saw three weeks ago was ugly -shameful mob violence to disrupt a constitutionally-mandated meeting of Congress to affirm that peaceful transfer of power.

It happened because the president lied to you. He lied about the election results for 60 days, despite losing 60 straight court challenges – many handed down by wonderful Trump-appointed judges. He lied by saying that the vice president could violate his Constitutional oath and just declare a new winner. He then riled a mob that attacked the Capitol – many chanting “Hang Pence.”

If that president were a Democrat, we both know how you’d respond. But, because he had “Republican” behind his name, you're defending him.

Something has definitely changed over the last four years…but it's not me:
-Personality cults aren’t conservative.
-Conspiracy theories aren’t conservative.
-Lying that an election has been stolen isn’t conservative.
-Acting like politics is a religion isn’t conservative.

I still believe every word from the campaign trail. What makes America great isn't power politics; it's what happens in the communities where we raise our kids.

Happily, most Nebraskans believe that too. I think that’s why Nebraskans just gave our campaign tens of thousands more votes than President Trump in our state. It’s why our campaign just set all-time vote count records in both the primary and general elections – despite being primaried last year for not being Trumpy – all-time most votes for any candidate in Nebraska history. And look at Omaha, which he lost by a lot – we won handily. Why? I think the reason’s simple: Nebraskans aren’t rage addicts. And that’s good.

You are welcome to censure me again – but let’s be clear about why: It’s because I still believe (as you used to) that politics is not about the weird worship of one dude.

The party could purge Trump-skeptics, but I'd like to convince you that not only is this “civic cancer” for the nation, but it's also terrible for our Party.

But either way, I'm gonna keep doing what I promised.

We still agree on some big things — rule of law, Constitutionalism, limited government, unlimited human potential, extending the American dream to more of our brothers and sisters – we can lead again....but only if our party is willing to change.
In just one term, the GOP has lost the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. That hasn’t happened since Herbert Hoover’s drubbing in 1932.

We’re gonna have to choose between conservatism and madness, between just railing about who we’re mad at, versus actually trying to persuade rising generations of Americans again.

That’s where I'm focused. And I sincerely hope that many of you will join in celebrating these big, worthy causes for freedom.
I know I won’t always get it right; I make a bunch of mistakes.

But I’m always gonna work hard for Nebraskans and tell you the truth.
Thanks for listening.

Have no fear.  Sasse will be censured.  Then the chief detective of the Senate will present the evidence that Sasse buys Hondas.  Then he will be imprisoned by the Dark Umbra Cell.  I know this because I have Secret Squirrel Clearance. 

[msquared]

I have a 3 hour video on my private Yooo-Tube channel that proves that Grant = Q.

[TheDrake]

WE ARE Q. You will be assimilated!

[msquared]

The entire Texas Republican machine trying to blame renewables and the Green New Deal for their power outages.

What a bunch of morons.

[TheDrake]

I'm just surprised they aren't blaming emissions standards for the major car crashes by pointing out that some of the vehicles involved were electric.

[msquared]

Ted Cruz says his daughter is to blame for his trip to Cancun, while Texan's freeze to death.

[rightleft22]

Ted Cruz says his daughter is to blame for his trip to Cancun, while Texan's freeze to death.

Never take responsibility a man of strong moral principles.   

[TheDrake]

Eh, I'm not sure the politicians making a big show of helping are much better. Plus, I'd just as soon not have Cruz around.

[yossarian22c]

Eh, I'm not sure the politicians making a big show of helping are much better. Plus, I'd just as soon not have Cruz around.

Agree. This isn’t even close to top 5 crappy things Cruz has done just this calendar year. I get the optics are bad but not much a senator can do to get the power back on.

[LetterRip]

I've always hated criticisms based on optics.  There isn't anything he can do.

[oldbrian]

I saw it on facebook, so take it with an entire block of salt:

Some comedian made a joke about conditions being bad through government mis-management, so Cruz took his family across the border.

And Dan Rather tweeted that dunking on Cruz is like bragging about dunking on a 3 foot hoop.

I remember Rather trying to be cool and funny during a presidential race back in the early 2000s(?). and mainly failing.  Apparently retirement has given him the free time to hone his material.

[rightleft22]

Eh, I'm not sure the politicians making a big show of helping are much better. Plus, I'd just as soon not have Cruz around.

Agree. This isn’t even close to top 5 crappy things Cruz has done just this calendar year. I get the optics are bad but not much a senator can do to get the power back on.

Yet how does such a person maintain his base of support???

[kidv]

[urlhttps://mobile.twitter.com/BFriedmanDC/status/1362598445157150720][/url]

"Beto O'Rourke organized 300,000 volunteer phone calls today to help senior citizens in Texas. AOC raised $1 million for relief efforts. Meanwhile, Ted Cruz is doing a media tour explaining why he flew to Cancun. What an amazing, historic piece of **** that guy is."

[https://mobile.twitter.com/WillBrockman2/status/1362620028999319556

"The fact that Ted couldn’t conceive of doing what a conscientious public servant would do in this situation is precisely why his supporters and his detractors were unanimous in believing that his presence wouldn’t make a difference."

[TheDrake]

I think Beto probably just slapped his name on things. Were those calls not going to be made if Beto went to Cancun? Did he really create a volunteer phone bank out of whole cloth, or did he just retweet about it? Did he use his connections to assemble the list of people to call? Or is it about as substantial as Trump renting out his name to put on a building that already existed and had nothing to do with him operationally?

The AOC thing is nice, but do you really think Ted with his base of support was going to accomplish that? Disaster donations are awfully close to recognizing the common good, which leads to SOCIALISM!

[kidv]

]https://mobile.twitter.com/BFriedmanDC/status/1362598445157150720]

"Beto O'Rourke organized 300,000 volunteer phone calls today to help senior citizens in Texas. AOC raised $1 million for relief efforts. Meanwhile, Ted Cruz is doing a media tour explaining why he flew to Cancun. What an amazing, historic piece of **** that guy is."

[https://mobile.twitter.com/WillBrockman2/status/1362620028999319556

"The fact that Ted couldn’t conceive of doing what a conscientious public servant would do in this situation is precisely why his supporters and his detractors were unanimous in believing that his presence wouldn’t make a difference."

I quote to activate the link above.  It seems like Beto used his phone bank of volunteers to contact people to verify need.  Beto reported on progress and was soliciting additional volunteers for subsequent days.

These are simply examples of things that could be done by people that are looking for ways to help.  Or ways to be a leader in a time of crisis.

[TheDrake]

Window dressing does count. It can inspire others. Other times it can demoralize - Cruz is better off going to Cancun than showing up at the local HEB and throwing paper towels.

I had to look up other articles about Beto, twitter is blocked as a social media site. In general, twitter doesn't make for great sourcing as it is. Also, nothing Beto did couldn't also have been done in Cancun. So the two are entirely separable issues. Can you do something to help people, versus can you do something to make yourself look good while not actually doing much?

I wish Ted's policy actions got half as much traction as his irrelevant Cancun trip.

[msquared]

Donald Trump Jr jumps in on the Cruz issue.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-jr-hits-democrat-193557095.html

Says people are ignoring the incompetence of the Democratic Governor of Texas.

You think after all Texas did to try and over turn the election on Trump's behalf, Don would know more of who these people are.

[LetterRip]

This is a common Republican tactic to claim incompetent and criminal Republican politicians are Democrats.

[TheDrake]

Obviously I know Abbot is a Republican, but it is irresponsible to post even sarcastically about the Democrat governor of Texas with zero context.

[msquared]

So now there are several stories about the Gov of New York harassing or assaulting women. The person leading the investigation is the Dem AG.

There are also stories out now about the freshman House rep from NC, Madison Cawthorne, about similar acts, as well as other lies he has told. Which party do you think is more likely to hold their own member accountable? So far the response from the more left leaning NY liberals, such as AOC, are much more on point with their beliefs than what seems to be happening to Cawthorne.

But we will see.

[TheDrake]

A political appointee of President Donald Trump has been arrested on charges that he stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 and assaulted an officer with a weapon, marking the first arrest of a Trump administration official in connection with the insurrection.

Federico Guillermo Klein, a former State Department official, made an initial appearance by teleconference on Friday before U.S. Magistrate Zia M. Faruqui in Washington, where prosecutors said they would seek to jail him pending trial at a hearing next Wednesday.

After ignoring officers’ orders to move back, he assaulted officers with a riot shield that had been stolen from police, the complaint said, and then used the shield to wedge open a door into the Capitol.

Man, Antifa has just infiltrated everywhere.

[msquared]

Like they said, Soros has deep pockets and has his hand everywhere.

[Wayward Son]

Not about personal responsibility, just purl=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/gop-re-embraces-earmarks-signaling-end-old-fiscal-tenets-n1261386] the dead Tea Party and Republicanism in general.[/url]

The era of small government is over.

And it’s been over for a while now.

That’s the undeniable conclusion after House Republicans — in a secret-ballot vote on Wednesday — reversed their ban on earmarks for projects in spending bills that end up benefitting their congressional districts, NBC’s Alex Moe reports. ...

That all represents an ideological sea change in American politics, and it speaks to how Trump and Trump-ism were never about spending, the size of government and deficits. ...

Some important caveats to this House GOP reversal on earmarks, per NBC’s Moe: Members have to publicly disclose their requests; they have to justify why they’re an appropriate use of taxpayer funding; and they have to prove that they or their immediate family don’t have a financial interest in the spending.

But there’s also an irony to this reversal: The GOP’s most prominent earmark slayer was John McCain, who made ending earmarks a central issue in his 2008 campaign for president.

Yet McCain eventually became a pariah in his own party during the Trump Era.

And as McCain went out of favor in the GOP, so too did the party’s resistance to earmarks.

[oldbrian]

Members have to publicly disclose their requests; they have to justify why they’re an appropriate use of taxpayer funding; and they have to prove that they or their immediate family don’t have a financial interest in the spending.

Honestly, that sounds like how government is supposed to work.  If everyone followed this formula, they never would have needed to get rid of them in the first place.

And yes, my middle name is Pollyanna.  Why do you ask?

[msquared]

Trump  setting up his donation sites as auto recurring donations, with the opt out options hidden below layers of pages.  Opt in and hidden auto doubling of donations auto checked by the sites.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-steered-supporters-unwitting-donations-142130038.html

530,000 refunds for $64.3 million. More examples of how Trump is just griffting his followers.

[DJQuag]

Trump  setting up his donation sites as auto recurring donations, with the opt out options hidden below layers of pages.  Opt in and hidden auto doubling of donations auto checked by the sites.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-steered-supporters-unwitting-donations-142130038.html

530,000 refunds for $64.3 million. More examples of how Trump is just griffting his followers.

AOL did the old folks similar.

"AOL" you say? How are they still a thing?

Yeah, it's because back when it was a reputable company AOL got a lot of people to sign up for their modem service. Some of the people keeping to it are rural, true, but the rest of em don't even remember they're signed up to give ten dollars or whatever a month.

[msquared]

Looks like MTG might have committed Tax Fraud in her home state of GA.  Of course she will say it was a complete accident and persuing this is just people who want to persecute her.