Tucker Carlson Obsession Thread (merged)

#3,327
#3,327
lawgator1 said:
It's just astounding that people will in any way, shape, or form, try to minimize what an atrocious thing this was.
Click to expand...
It's not about minimization. It's about what actually happened. A ton of what the protestors did was disgusting. I find what the 1/6 comity did gross as well. They only showed what supported their argument. That should bother you. They are the same as Tucker. Well you are too. Not shocking
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland, VolsAgainstTheWorld15 and OL SMOKEY
#3,330
#3,330
BreatheUT said:
Pelosi and the democrats don't get to choose which Republicans are qualified to reside on committees because they are the party in power otherwise when Republicans are in power the minority party would just have empty seats.
Click to expand...
You may have missed my proposal.
The party in power can reject the most biased but also must supply a list of at least 20 names from the opposing party that they would gladly accept.

I want the members of each party to select 10 members from the other party that will then rank the members from their party from least to most biased. It should be known to all that the members who rank at the bottom of the list will NEVER get a decent assignment when the opposition is in power.

It would be up to the voters of each district to decide if they want a partisan divider or someone who will be able to work with whichever party is in power.
 
#3,331
#3,331
volfanhill said:
So opposite side of the same coin that our congressional leadership did during the hearings.
Click to expand...
Republicans shouldn't have refused to participate on the committee. That's 100% on them. Maybe next time they wont be such petulant babies.
 
#3,340
#3,340
hog88 said:
They did assign members and Pelosi rejected them. Once that happened the committee lost all legitimacy.
Click to expand...
She only rejected two. She accepted the other 3, and he could have appointed 2 others. Why was it so important to have those two radically partisan Trump humpers on the committee? Did he feel that an average republican house member wouldn't do the job? We all know the answers.
 
#3,341
#3,341
luthervol said:
You may have missed my proposal.
The party in power can reject the most biased but also must supply a list of at least 20 names from the opposing party that they would gladly accept.

I want the members of each party to select 10 members from the other party that will then rank the members from their party from least to most biased. It should be known to all that the members who rank at the bottom of the list will NEVER get a decent assignment when the opposition is in power.

It would be up to the voters of each district to decide if they want a partisan divider or someone who will be able to work with whichever party is in power.
Click to expand...

I don't see a problem with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
#3,342
#3,342
luthervol said:
She only rejected two. She accepted the other 3, and he could have appointed 2 others. Why was it so important to have those two radically partisan Trump humpers on the committee? Did he feel that an average republican house member wouldn't do the job? We all know the answers.
Click to expand...

Why was it so important to reject them? Did she think her “truth” couldn’t stand their scrutiny?
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland, Vol8188 and StarRaider
#3,343
#3,343
hog88 said:
Why was it so important to reject them? Did she think her “truth” couldn’t stand their scrutiny?
Click to expand...
They would not be there to scrutinize. They would be there to scream and obstruct and do everything within their power to create a clown show that would appeal to the radicalized right-wing.....both of them are complete douche bags and everyone knows it.

Now answer my question, why not appoint a middle of the road repub who would actually take the assignment seriously and try to do a fair job while representing the republican position?
 
#3,344
#3,344
luthervol said:
They would not be there to scrutinize. They would be there to scream and obstruct and do everything within their power to create a clown show that would appeal to the radicalized right-wing.....both of them are complete douche bags and everyone knows it.

Now answer my question, why not appoint a middle of the road repub who would actually take the assignment seriously and try to do a fair job while representing the republican position?
Click to expand...

You have to distinguish between the REAL position of the Republican members of Congress who were there, which is that were appalled and freaked out, versus the appease the Trump people position, which is alternative facts to the extreme.
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
#3,347
#3,347
luthervol said:
They would not be there to scrutinize. They would be there to scream and obstruct and do everything within their power to create a clown show that would appeal to the radicalized right-wing.....both of them are complete douche bags and everyone knows it.

Now answer my question, why not appoint a middle of the road repub who would actually take the assignment seriously and try to do a fair job while representing the republican position?
Click to expand...

Her move to reject the selections was not hers to make. It has never been done before and you see the fallout from that decision today. When a similar action is made by the Republicans against the Democrats for a future committee, I am sure we will have your support and understanding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland, StarRaider, hog88 and 1 other person
#3,348
#3,348
luthervol said:
They would not be there to scrutinize. They would be there to scream and obstruct and do everything within their power to create a clown show that would appeal to the radicalized right-wing.....both of them are complete douche bags and everyone knows it.

Now answer my question, why not appoint a middle of the road repub who would actually take the assignment seriously and try to do a fair job while representing the republican position?
Click to expand...

No. That’s not a legitimate question. The minority leader should be able to appoint any members they choose so why did Pelosi not honor that tradition? Could it be she knew that with anyone who wasn’t on her team would expose the farce the committee was?
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#3,350
#3,350
CobbVol said:
Her move to reject the selections was not hers to make. It has never been done before and you see the fallout from that decision today. When a similar action is made by the Republicans against the Democrats for a future committee, I am sure we will have your support and understanding.
Click to expand...
For the fifth time.
I think it should be done EVERY TIME!!
Radical partisans intent on nothing but increasing the divide should NEVER be allowed on committees by the party in the majority.

My plan: the Rs pick 10 Ds to rank all Rs from least to most partisan.
The Ds pick 10 Rs to rank all Ds from least to most partisan.

The 10 with the worst rating are never allowed on any important committee.
The party in power can and should reject anyone at the bottom of the list, but they should be required to give 5 acceptable names for every one they reject.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top