Bye-Bye Liz Cheney

House Republicans made it official when they voted to remove Liz Cheney as the third most powerful Republican in the House. The Democrats are up in arms.

Her second vote to impeach Trump as the last straw for me. I could have held my nose and put up with the first vote, but she did it a second time when Trump was virtually out of office, I had had enough.

This woman is RINO and a fraud. I hope she retires or gets knocked out in the Republican primary.


She’s buddies with the dems anyway. And that quiet…under the radar she thought fist bump with Presidebt Applesauce did not help her. Good riddance.

Man, if only Rep Cheney smuggled a 17 year old over state lines for sex or ranted about Jewish Space Lasers, Kevin McCarthy would have given her unconditional support.

You’re absolutely right, and for once I agree with you. A True Republican would have ignored the vote, said it was rigged and tacitly endorse domestic terrorism without explicitly endorsing it. That Liz Cheney was willing to accept a vote that didn’t go her way proves she is no GOPer and a fraud, like you said.

I guess there aren’t any true republicans out there. And haven’t been for quite some time?

Why don’t you stick to your own party, @Patooka? I dislike many people in you party, but I don’t tell Democrats how to vote. If Liz Cheney is so unpopular, then maybe the Democrats will pick up the seat.

As for me, if I were in her district, I’d vote against her in the primary. If she were the Republican nominee, I would vote for her because anybody your party runs will vote with Pelosi 100% of the time. That’s a vote for one party fascism.

1 Like

I do. On a state level, I vote for the NSW branch of the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party and for federal elections I always vote for the most likely Independent candidate to win. I just think it’s a topic most people around here are not interested in, so I don’t mention it.

A) I’m not sure you can mention anyone “in my party” and B) See above.

I’ve lost count the amount of times I have to point out Democrats aren’t my party, or that I have any loyalty to any particular party. I only vote SFF because they are the party that is similar to my values and that’s despite my difference of opinion to gun control legislation. I’d drop them in a heartbeat if they veer further away from my values. You should never give your loyalty to any political party - they should be accountable to you.

Incidentally, if you think the US Democratic are some sort of monolithic organisation, you may want to stop and look at what you’re shovelling.

Dude, this is an exaggeration.

She didn’t say Jewish, she said Rothschild & Co. Their vice chair is also on the board of the PG&E utility, and a former California Utility director is on the board of Solaren, who PG&E partnered with.

Her accusation is wide-eyed and based on her misunderstanding on how Solaren’s technology worked, but she did not accuse Jews. She accused big money.

Her entire comment is disgust at the quid pro quo that goes on in California surrounding the high speed rail project, and accusing the relationships driving it of being involved with the fire.

Considering how laughably awful the high speed rail project has been, how blatantly self-serving to the figureheads involved, I don’t blame anyone with accusing everyone involved of the worst. It’s the figureheads own fault

Long before Marjorie Taylor Greene ever stepped into office, these people were already acting like blatant dip*****.

On this forum, the Democrats are your party. You are determined to push socialism and reckless government spending, with huge increases in the money supply, on United States citizens while you are not even a resident of this country. To say that the far left Democrats are not your party is a total cop-out.

I don’t know much about Australian politics and would never tell you what they should be unless Australia was threatening its neighbors like Communist China, North Korea, Russia and Iran are. In those cases, I would like to see regime changes, but their people have no choice because they live dictatorships.

Your American party, the Democrats have a bill in Congress that would make them dictators. It’s called Senate Bill #1. If you cared about Democracy, you would be concerned about it, but you aren’t. You are only concerned about making socialism the form of government that rules the world.

One last thought about the removal of Liz Cheney for the Democrats.

What if #3 person in the Democrat Congress caucus voted to impeach Bill Clinton in the late 1990s, would you be feeling all touchy feelly for that person? I doubt it. You would be complaining about how disloyal they were. The same is true for loyal Republicans.

You don’t go after the sitting president of your party unless he is caught red handed, like Richard Nixon was.

You know, I wasn’t around for Nixon, but I’ve heard from several sources many Republicans were still quite loyal to him and didn’t agree with the impeachment. Do you, or anyone here old enough to remember, have any perspective on that?

I was in my 20s, and I was a Democrat then. Yes, there were Republicans who defended Nixon to hilt, and went down with the ship with Nixon pulling them to the bottom. There was a South New Jersey Congressman, Charles Sandman, who supported Nixon until the “smoking gun” came out. His comment was “devastating.” It ended his political career.

One stupid mossback, whose name escapes me, made the stupid statement that “His mind would not be changed by the facts.” Needless to say, that was the end of his career.

There was a big difference in the way the Congressional Democrats handled the Nixon impeachment hearings and the way the Democrats handled the Trump impeachment. They were very careful to get all the facts and not make it look like a witch hunt. New Jersey Congressman, Peter Rodino chaired the committee and conducted the hearings. He was a very savvy politician who played his cards carefully. He realized the gravity of situation.

Senator Sam Irving, who was an old time southern politician played his cards similarly. He emerged with a greatly enhanced reputation.

Impeaching a president is not like a side show at the country fair. The Republicans of late 1990s who impeached Bill Clinton and the Democrats of the 2000-teens would do well to take that advice.

Before the truth came out about Nixon’s involvement in the Watergate Cover-up, There was an 18 minute gap in the tapes Nixon recorded in the Oval Office. The gap was probably caused by Nixon’s secretary, Rosemary Woods, or by Nixon himself.

This token was issued by a labor union during that period. I might have some other pieces, but these are the photos I have at the moment.

1 Like

I might add that Nixon was never impeached. The House Republican leaders counted noses and told him that he probably had less than 10 or 20 votes in his favor. Nixon resigned before the impeachment vote was taken.

I was only eight when the Watergate hearings were going on. I do know that he wasn’t impeached; he resigned to avoid it. I’ve heard mixed things about him. Obviously, he shouldn’t have tried to cover up the break-in, and rightfully cooked his own goose when he did. Otherwise, I don’t have a firm opinion about him as President.

Nixon was very much of a mixed bag from the Republican point of view. One thing he pushed for was the Value Added Tax (VAT), which I would strongly oppose today. He was ready to push that on us ALONG WITH the income tax, which would have met that we would more like Europe today, if he had gotten that through.

He also instituted wage and price controls, which was very much against free market Republican principles. As would be expected, they didn’t work. Instead companies had to make reports to the government about their pricing policies which added layers of unproductive work. I know because I was a cost accountant at the time working for a large chemical company. The added work load was onerous.

Nixon continued and widened the Vietnam War. I know that this is an area where most conservatives disagree with me, but it was a non-productive move. I opposed the war for “the wrong reasons.” Vietnam was not where our strategic interests lay. Our main concerns should have been in Western Europe. Vietnam was not and would not become part of the Communist Chinese monolith. The Vietnamese and the Chinese never got along, and that has continued to this day. The current “Trump Doctrine” is to avoid long pointless wars, like Vietnam.

Nixon was a complex man. He was extremely intelligent, and he took great pride in his expertise in foreign policy. At the same time, he was extremely paranoid, which brought down his presidency. He also seemed to have a sort of inferiority complex, which kept him constantly on the defensive.

Republicans could never understand why Watergate happened. Nixon had the 1972 presidential race in the bag. He had the natural advantages that incumbent presidents have. He was also running against one of the weakest candidates the Democrats could have picked.

McGovern was the first, far left extremist Democrat to win the nomination. His campaign was poorly organized and completely disjointed. It started by choosing Thomas Eagleton for vice president and went downhill from there.

McGovern staffers could not plan an event without screwing it up. The fact that McGovern gave his acceptance speech at 3 AM in the morning was an indication of things to come. It was a preview of what a McGovern presidency would have been. He was a weak candidate, but as a Democrat, I could not fully see it at the time.

Why did Nixon feel compelled to burglarize the Democrat headquarters? Why did Nixon cover it up? It all went back to his paranoid nature.

I might agree up to a point, but I believe that once we were in Vietnam, we should have fought to win.

As I understand it, he had nothing to do with it. His problem was that once he was aware that the break-in occurred, he tried to cover it up.

1 Like

What were you going to get after you won? Where we going to set up another puppet government run by people, like Key and Diem, who were there to get rich off the American tax payer? There were no good alternatives. The Ho Che Min was the Vietnamese George Washington. You might not like that analogy or Ho’s economic theories, but that was true.

When you can’t get what you want, you work with what you can get. Vietnam and China are not allies, and Vietnam does not like or trust them. That in itself is a victory.

When a policy is wrong, why insist on doubled down on it at the expense of American lives and treasure? This was the question for Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.

I’m not convinced that it would have been as bleak as you paint it. As I understand it, the commies admitted that we had them practically licked (but we snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory), which doesn’t sound like they had as much popular support as you’re making it sound.

But the particular point I’m trying to make is that once we made the commitment, we should have fought to the end. Ever since, the U.S. has had a reputation for being irresolute, and we’re paying for it.

The war would not end without a ground invasion of the North, and had we done that, China would have gotten involved and made this a repeat of Korea on terrain where it’s even harder to track troop movements.

We would have had to redouble our material and troop commitments, and that of our allies, at a time when the Soviets were building up their presence in Europe.

We didn’t have the resources to do both. It was either fighting a war that won us nothing, or to better protect what mattered in Germany, where the people were on our side.

1 Like

I’m not convinced. As I said, as I understand it, North Vietnam admitted later that we had them licked.

That said, North Korea brings up another point: We should have fought that one to win, too. We’re paying for that failure now.

The trouble with that strategy is that you could have ended up in World War III with the Chinese and perhaps even the Russians. The Chinese and North Koreans were both clients of Joseph Stalin, and he was not going to let his gains disappear. Furthermore, they would have been fighting on their home turf while we would have had a war far bigger than Vietnam to fight.

The Chinese Communists had already jumped into the war, which saved North Korea from a defeat. There is no reason to assume that they would not have kept fighting, especially when you had people in the U.S. asking, “Who lost China?” and calling for a counterrevolution.

Like it or not, Communist regimes are here to say. The goal is to contain them where possible.

And in case you are missing it, the United States is on its way to become a socialist state. The leadership of the Democrat Party is dedicated to that goal. We have a containment task right here in our own country.