MAQA Civil War

[Ibanez]

Nancy Mace is an embarrassment…I can’t wait to NOT vote for her crazy ass.

[GannonFan]

Nancy Mace is an embarrassment…I can’t wait to NOT vote for her crazy ass.

Agreed, she's even a little too nutty for the House of Reps, which is saying something.

[UNI88]

Cat fight!

[UNI88]

‘I do not work for you’: MTG speaks out on growing rift with Trump’s White House over Epstein files

The rift between the MAGA firebrand and White House deepened after a Trump official apparently told her that her support of bipartisan legislation ordering the release of the so-called Epstein files would be viewed as a “very hostile act.”
....
“I told them, ‘You didn’t get me elected. I do not work for you; I work for my district,’” the Georgia Republican representative recently told The New York Times.

The right-wing representative says she called a top West Wing aide to push back against that threat, telling the Times, “We aren’t supposed to just be whipping on our votes because they’re telling us what to do with this scary threat, or saying, ‘We’ll primary you,’ or that we won’t get invited to the White House events.”

“Me personally? I don’t care,” Greene continued, noting when she encounters similar tactics from Trump’s team, “I’m like, ‘[Expletive] you’”

[kalm]

‘I do not work for you’: MTG speaks out on growing rift with Trump’s White House over Epstein files

The rift between the MAGA firebrand and White House deepened after a Trump official apparently told her that her support of bipartisan legislation ordering the release of the so-called Epstein files would be viewed as a “very hostile act.”
....
“I told them, ‘You didn’t get me elected. I do not work for you; I work for my district,’” the Georgia Republican representative recently told The New York Times.

The right-wing representative says she called a top West Wing aide to push back against that threat, telling the Times, “We aren’t supposed to just be whipping on our votes because they’re telling us what to do with this scary threat, or saying, ‘We’ll primary you,’ or that we won’t get invited to the White House events.”

“Me personally? I don’t care,” Greene continued, noting when she encounters similar tactics from Trump’s team, “I’m like, ‘[Expletive] you’”

[UNI88]

Nebraska Republican blasts ‘foolish’ Trump over indictment calls

Bacon said the indictments call Attorney General Pam Bondi’s impartiality into question.

“If you’re just an outsider looking in and he’s making demands, and then the indictments occur, it undermines the perception of fair justice,” he said. “Now, they still got to get a grand jury to do the indictment, so they could still be guilty. And if they were guilty, they deserve to be held accountable.”

Bacon added that Trump’s involvement undermines the legal process.

“I wish somebody would just tell them in his office: Stop talking about indictments and demanding indictments, because you’re hurting your own cause,” he said.

[UNI88]

MTG lays into ‘weak Republican men’ in Congress as scorched-earth approach to her own party turns nuclear

Speaking with The Washington Post in an interview that was published on Tuesday, Greene blamed “weak Republican men” in Congress for supposedly trying to marginalize her and other women in the GOP conference who, she said, were interested in making real progress on issues.

“Whereas President Trump has a very strong, dominant style — he’s not weak at all — a lot of the men here in the House are weak,” Greene told the Post.

“There’s a lot of weak Republican men and they’re more afraid of strong Republican women. So they always try to marginalize the strong Republican women that actually want to do something and actually want to achieve.”
...
Greene is fiercely loyal to Trump but has publicly broken with leadership on matters of policy and strategy many times — even leading an unsuccessful bid to unseat Johnson as speaker. She’s one of a number of members of the Republican conference whom Trump has lobbied personally to secure votes for the passage of key pieces of legislation and to maintain the House GOP’s fragile unity.

[UNI88]

Mike Johnson’s nightmare: Kevin Kiley is unhappy with the speaker and has nothing to lose

Now two weeks into the standoff, Kiley made clear in an interview Tuesday he has no plans to quiet down on Johnson’s handling of the shutdown, the future of crucial health insurance subsidies and the GOP’s controversial redistricting campaign that has suddenly put Kiley’s own political future in doubt.

Having already called Johnson’s strategy of keeping the House out of session during the shutdown “embarrassing,” Kiley reiterated Tuesday that it was the “wrong decision” and threatens to prolong the impasse.
...
Kiley, who was in Washington Tuesday and appeared at an otherwise sparsely attended pro forma afternoon session, added that the no-show strategy also means House Republicans are “again falling behind” on the full-year spending bills that could be part of a lasting solution to the shutdown: “All the things we were supposed to be getting done and working on are not getting done.”
...
Inside the House GOP, however, some see payback for what appears to be an existential threat to Kiley’s congressional career: the partisan redistricting fight now playing out across the country.

After President Donald Trump persuaded Texas Republicans to redraw their House maps ahead of the 2026 midterms, California Gov. Gavin Newsom launched a campaign to do the same in his own state. Should a Democratic-backed ballot measure pass next month, Kiley and several of his GOP colleagues in the state’s delegation are almost certain to be drawn out of their seats.

Kiley has urged Johnson and fellow House Republicans to pass legislation barring the redrawing of maps outside of the usual decennial Census-driven process. “Just because a party thinks that they can gain an advantage by redrawing lines all of a sudden doesn't mean they should do it,” he said.

It's a lot easier to maintain unity when you don't occupy the White House and control both houses of Congress.

[BDKJMU]

Mike Johnson’s nightmare: Kevin Kiley is unhappy with the speaker and has nothing to lose

Now two weeks into the standoff, Kiley made clear in an interview Tuesday he has no plans to quiet down on Johnson’s handling of the shutdown, the future of crucial health insurance subsidies and the GOP’s controversial redistricting campaign that has suddenly put Kiley’s own political future in doubt.

Having already called Johnson’s strategy of keeping the House out of session during the shutdown “embarrassing,” Kiley reiterated Tuesday that it was the “wrong decision” and threatens to prolong the impasse.
...
Kiley, who was in Washington Tuesday and appeared at an otherwise sparsely attended pro forma afternoon session, added that the no-show strategy also means House Republicans are “again falling behind” on the full-year spending bills that could be part of a lasting solution to the shutdown: “All the things we were supposed to be getting done and working on are not getting done.”
...
Inside the House GOP, however, some see payback for what appears to be an existential threat to Kiley’s congressional career: the partisan redistricting fight now playing out across the country.

After President Donald Trump persuaded Texas Republicans to redraw their House maps ahead of the 2026 midterms, California Gov. Gavin Newsom launched a campaign to do the same in his own state. Should a Democratic-backed ballot measure pass next month, Kiley and several of his GOP colleagues in the state’s delegation are almost certain to be drawn out of their seats.

Kiley has urged Johnson and fellow House Republicans to pass legislation barring the redrawing of maps outside of the usual decennial Census-driven process. “Just because a party thinks that they can gain an advantage by redrawing lines all of a sudden doesn't mean they should do it,” he said.

It's a lot easier to maintain unity when you don't occupy the White House and control both houses of Congress.

Lol I stopped reading 1st paragraph when the lib author said about temporary health care subsidies that were written by donks to be temporary during COVID

the future of crucial health insurance subsidies.

Nothing crucial about them.

[UNI88]

Mike Johnson’s nightmare: Kevin Kiley is unhappy with the speaker and has nothing to lose

It's a lot easier to maintain unity when you don't occupy the White House and control both houses of Congress.

Lol I stopped reading 1st paragraph when the lib author said about temporary health care subsidies that were written by donks to be temporary during COVID

the future of crucial health insurance subsidies.

Nothing crucial about them.

Kind of like the tax cuts in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Let them sunset and see how it impacts the 2026 & 2028 elections.

[BDKJMU]

Lol I stopped reading 1st paragraph when the lib author said about temporary health care subsidies that were written by donks to be temporary during COVID

Nothing crucial about them.

Kind of like the tax cuts in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Let them sunset and see how it impacts the 2026 & 2028 elections.

Yes, let them sunset. They didn’t exist 2010 when Obamacare passed, to 2021. Obamacare was supposed to make your insurance cheaper, remember?

[UNI88]

Kind of like the tax cuts in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Let them sunset and see how it impacts the 2026 & 2028 elections.

Yes, let them sunset. They didn’t exist 2010 when Obamacare passed, to 2021. Obamacare was supposed to make your insurance cheaper, remember?

Thank you for skipping over the tax cuts in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act - nothing crucial about them either. We should have let them sunset as well.

[UNI88]

[UNI88]

[UNI88]

[kalm]

^ he’s right.

[GannonFan]

^ he’s right.

I would say we don't technically need a declaration of war, but at a minimum there needs to be some consultation with and approval from Congress to continue this further. The one video they did show didn't look like a simple fishing boat (the video had a boat designed for speed with three sizeable outboard motors) and the other claiming they blew up a submersible doesn't sound like a fishing boat either (don't know of that many folks who fish while under water). I think there's a legitimate issue here, but we're clearly not going about it in the correct way.

[UNI88]

^ he’s right.

I would say we don't technically need a declaration of war, but at a minimum there needs to be some consultation with and approval from Congress to continue this further. The one video they did show didn't look like a simple fishing boat (the video had a boat designed for speed with three sizeable outboard motors) and the other claiming they blew up a submersible doesn't sound like a fishing boat either (don't know of that many folks who fish while under water). I think there's a legitimate issue here, but we're clearly not going about it in the correct way.

Does it matter if it's a fishing boat? Does the US have the authority to just blow up a boat in international waters based on the suspicion that they're carrying drugs? Or is blowing up the boat itself possibly a criminal act?

If they were carrying drugs and we could prove it, why did we send the survivors back to their home countries rather than charging them?

[kalm]

I would say we don't technically need a declaration of war, but at a minimum there needs to be some consultation with and approval from Congress to continue this further. The one video they did show didn't look like a simple fishing boat (the video had a boat designed for speed with three sizeable outboard motors) and the other claiming they blew up a submersible doesn't sound like a fishing boat either (don't know of that many folks who fish while under water). I think there's a legitimate issue here, but we're clearly not going about it in the correct way.

Does it matter if it's a fishing boat? Does the US have the authority to just blow up a boat in international waters based on the suspicion that they're carrying drugs? Or is blowing up the boat itself possibly a criminal act?

If they were carrying drugs and we could prove it, why did we send the survivors back to their home countries rather than charging them?

If it’s ok for us to do it in this fashion it’s ok for other nations to light up suspected fishing boats as well. Not to mention, drug trafficking is not a capital offense. So no, we don’t have the authority and Trump is literally violating international law and guilty of murder here.

[GannonFan]

I would say we don't technically need a declaration of war, but at a minimum there needs to be some consultation with and approval from Congress to continue this further. The one video they did show didn't look like a simple fishing boat (the video had a boat designed for speed with three sizeable outboard motors) and the other claiming they blew up a submersible doesn't sound like a fishing boat either (don't know of that many folks who fish while under water). I think there's a legitimate issue here, but we're clearly not going about it in the correct way.

Does it matter if it's a fishing boat? Does the US have the authority to just blow up a boat in international waters based on the suspicion that they're carrying drugs? Or is blowing up the boat itself possibly a criminal act?

If they were carrying drugs and we could prove it, why did we send the survivors back to their home countries rather than charging them?

I'm sure it's against international law. But then again, we spent 8 years under Obama killing via drone anyone in the Middle East we didn't like, as well as the unfortunate people that could be in the same car or room with that person. If Congress assented to the President using force to interdict drug runners then he would certainly have more cover in America and our legal system (akin to how Congress gave power to Bush ("W") for Afghanistan and Iraq. It would certainly improve his case if they actually showed the drugs that are purportedly on the boats and submersibles. Hard to do that when you just blow them up.

[UNI88]

Does it matter if it's a fishing boat? Does the US have the authority to just blow up a boat in international waters based on the suspicion that they're carrying drugs? Or is blowing up the boat itself possibly a criminal act?

If they were carrying drugs and we could prove it, why did we send the survivors back to their home countries rather than charging them?

I'm sure it's against international law. But then again, we spent 8 years under Obama killing via drone anyone in the Middle East we didn't like, as well as the unfortunate people that could be in the same car or room with that person. If Congress assented to the President using force to interdict drug runners then he would certainly have more cover in America and our legal system (akin to how Congress gave power to Bush ("W") for Afghanistan and Iraq. It would certainly improve his case if they actually showed the drugs that are purportedly on the boats and submersibles. Hard to do that when you just blow them up.

Good points. I would argue that Obama had a little more cover:
- Afghanistan - definitely covered under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)
- Pakistan - arguably covered under the AUMF (against al-Qaeda and Taliban)
- Yemen - arguably covered under the AUMF (against al-Qaeda)
- Somalia - arguably covered under the AUMF (targeting al-Shabaab as an “associated force” of al-Qaeda)
- Libya - arguably covered under a U.N. Security Council resolution and NATO mandate
- Iraq - arguably covered under the AUMF
- Syria - arguably covered under the AUMF

Does trump have any argument that his actions are authorized/covered other than he's the POTUS and can do what he wants?

[GannonFan]

I'm sure it's against international law. But then again, we spent 8 years under Obama killing via drone anyone in the Middle East we didn't like, as well as the unfortunate people that could be in the same car or room with that person. If Congress assented to the President using force to interdict drug runners then he would certainly have more cover in America and our legal system (akin to how Congress gave power to Bush ("W") for Afghanistan and Iraq. It would certainly improve his case if they actually showed the drugs that are purportedly on the boats and submersibles. Hard to do that when you just blow them up.

Good points. I would argue that Obama had a little more cover:
- Afghanistan - definitely covered under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)
- Pakistan - arguably covered under the AUMF (against al-Qaeda and Taliban)
- Yemen - arguably covered under the AUMF (against al-Qaeda)
- Somalia - arguably covered under the AUMF (targeting al-Shabaab as an “associated force” of al-Qaeda)
- Libya - arguably covered under a U.N. Security Council resolution and NATO mandate
- Iraq - arguably covered under the AUMF
- Syria - arguably covered under the AUMF

Does trump have any argument that his actions are authorized/covered other than he's the POTUS and can do what he wants?

I think Presidents are allowed some use of force (especially when the need is immediate or has a time component to it), but still eventually have to go back to Congress at some point.

[UNI88]

US Senate passes bill with Republican support to block Trump tariffs on Brazil

The legislation passed in a 52-48 vote, with five Republicans – Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and the former Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky – joining all Democrats in favor. The vote took place on day 28 of the federal government shutdown with both sides at loggerheads over spending legislation.

The resolution, led by Senator Tim Kaine, a Democrat of Virginia, would overturn the national emergency that Trump has declared to justify the levies, though it is all but certain to stall in the US House, where the Republican-controlled chamber acted to pre-emptively shut down any attempt to block the president’s tariffs. In the unlikely event the measure were to reach the president’s desk, it would meet Trump’s veto.

[UNI88]

JD Vance says Kristi Noem is a ‘really terrible' person

Devine asked the vice president what he believed a willingness to hurt dogs revealed about an owner.

“I think it tells you that they’re bad people,” he answered. “If you can actually cause suffering to an innocent animal, you’re probably the kind of person who doesn’t worry about suffering in people as well and that’s been my experience. If you mistreat dogs, that’s a 100 percent sign that you’re gonna be a really terrible person.”
...
“If you’re not taking care of God’s creatures then you are certainly going to be, I think, a pretty bad person in other ways too.”

[Caribbean Hen]

^ he’s right.

We don’t blow up boats off of Miami because they don’t carry large volumes of drugs like these Go fast boats departing Colombia and Venezuela. They shut that down in the 80s and that’s why they moved to the Caribbean and later to the eastern Pacific. They do smuggle illegal immigrants staged in the Bahamas and small amounts of drugs

He is also wrong that these drugs don’t have a pathway into the United States. Of course they do. Thats just silly

Now, if he wants to argue about if this is legal or not, that’s another story …. He should change his approach.