Republicans Are Weak


Republicans control the White House, the Senate and the House. There are currently 5 separate investigations underway in Congress looking at Russian interference in our election process and Trump and members of his administration. At least one of these congressional committee investigations has gone on since before last year’s election. Thus far, the only crime detected has been the public “unmasking” of Mike Flynn.

Congressional Republican leadership could end the congressional frontal assault by those Democrats in Congress engaged in overthrowing the Trump administration by way of a 1000 cuts - all supported by media eager for the next leak from unnamed sources.

So, why in hell don’t The Republicans, after nearly a year of investigating leaks, innuendo, false narratives by unnamed sources with no crime being detected on the part of this administration, declare the committee investigations concluded? Only the Mueller investigation would continue.

At the same time Congressional Republican leadership could/should announce the opening of a Trey Gowdy led committee investigation into the Loretta Lynch/Bill Clinton meeting on the tarmac at Sky Harbor Airport in Phoenix, including the meeting’s possible influence on the email corruption investigation by Hillary Clinton, along with Jim Comey’s role. In addition, Trump should order AG Sessions to convene a grand jury to review the evidence in the Hillary Clinton email scandal.

Answer: With only a few exceptions, congressional Republicans are WEAK, easily intimidated and running scared.

Should the insane media circus as currently produced by Democrats continue to go effectively unchallenged by Republicans, Trump may not finish his first term and the Democrats will likely control Congress and the presidency within 4 years. IMHO

BTW - if one were to have just landed on earth and didn’t know better he would have to think Democrats are in control of Congress. That said, if Repubs don’t get the tax cuts or repeal/replace Obamacare done this year it is unlikely they will get it done - in which case I will have voted in the national general election for the last time.


**“BTW - if one were to have just landed on earth and didn’t know better he would have to think Democrats are in control of Congress. That said, if Repubs don’t get the tax cuts or repeal/replace Obamacare done this year it is unlikely they will get it done - in which case I will have voted in the national general election for the last time.”

Don’t say such things; just gives the radicals more incentive to dig their feet a bit harder!!


> Republicans Are Weak

Only if you believe that there is a difference!


I’ve witnessed timid congressional Republicans get little accomplished of importance for decades. Perhaps this current bunch will get something meaningful accomplished this year, but with each passing day it appears more and more unlikely.

It does little good to continue to show up at the polls to support “Elephants” that refuse to pull the cart.

You know where the real source of obstructionism is located? In the Republican controlled Senate. It is where House bills go to die. After 8 years on the sideline talking Shiite about Obamacare, congressional Republicans - first the House, now the Senate - look like 2 chimps trying to diddle a football. And they will soon leave for the July 4th recess, then at the end of July they go on summer recess. Even if they do come up with a bill it will take 51 votes to pass it - and it won’t be much of a bill because it must pass muster under “reconciliation”. I will be AMAZED if 51 votes can be generated for any health insurance bill , given the presence and recent comments of McCain and Jeff Flake of AZ and Rand Paul. No Democrat will vote for anything the Republicans draw up.

The only individual in Washington committed to getting anything done is Trump - unfortunately, he is so damaged he’ll be lucky to avoid impeachment. In fact, he may be lucky to avoid indictment - you take a Democrat special counsel who hires a fleet of Democrat contributing/supporting attorneys hell-bent on finding something you can almost see an indictment for something - anything - coming. Add to that a government mostly staffed with Democrat loyalist leaking right and left and a complicit anti-Republican/Trump media and . . ., well, you get the picture. Finally, throw in a largely timid group of elected Republicans - hell, you tell me how this ends!!

We’re in the midst of an attempted coup d etat. Sadly, many Republican elected officials don’t understand what’s going on - that or they are so vested in the status quo they would have preferred Hillary as POTUS and will gladly help dump Trump.

That’s how I see it.


Mike, right now the BIGGEST enemy we have sets in Congress and the RIGHT side of the aisle, not the left.

I personally think we are doomed, I see no sunlight here at all. The left is OVERT in its actions and the RIGHT is COVERT and worse is always your friend who is really your enemy.

My guess is 2018 will bring and dims back in control of Congress and at that time Trump is dead in the water, his last 2 years being for naught. The people that put him in office will just say ‘we can’t win’ and I have had enough. Now its focusing on me and my family and preparing for the onslaught of extreme left Congress/POTUS that will take office in 2020 and never to relinquish in most of our lifetimes.

As of 2013: The percentage of non-Hispanic white people in the U.S. population has reached an all-time low: 63%. That is 197.7 million white people out of 313.9 million Americans. In 2000, whites were 69% of the population. In 1980, they made up 80%.

Add in the illegals, the 1 MILLION per year pouring in from other countries and when it comes time to vote…the GOP cannot offer more FREE than the far left with its upcoming Universal Basic Income, which of course is based upon how large is the family unit and we know where that went under welfare.

Hi, I am 17 Oaks and I am running for office. What do you get? A job, send illegals packing, reduce welfare and free medical, end cell fone give aways, just to name a few…

Hi I am Joe (formerly Josie) D.Nutjob I am running for office. What do you get? UBI and cost of living raises and the more kids and mom/pop, granny that live with your the more you get paid, free medical, free housing, free utilities, free college tuition, free public transportation, free protected class status, safe places, free disability if you can’t or won’t work, need a new car there ya are, free cable tv, all you illegals welcome here as long as you are not white, speaking of which, we now have white free zones you can live in. Here meet my husband/wife, Bruce-Betty who is latino (man)/black (woman) and we welcome ALL:


L — lesbian

G — gay

B — bisexual

T — transgender (Transgender is an acceptable label for anyone who does not identify as the gender they were assigned to at birth. An asterisk (i.e., trans*) was once used to include non-binary people, but it’s not necessary, since non-binary people are already trans.)

Q — queer or questioning; the Q stands for both.

I — intersex (this is controversial, and some intersex people do not wish to be considered LGBTQ+.)

A — the asexual and/or aromantic spectrum; includes grey-asexuality, demisexuality, etc. Historically, it has been used to stand for “allies” as well—but specifically in order to cover for the closeted individuals in LGBTQ+ spaces. The “A” is definitely not for allies who are both straight and cisgender.

The “+” includes all other queer identities that have not already been mentioned, such as pansexuality and polysexuality.

S…THERE IS NO S for straight, not welcome here.

Who are you gonna vote for?


Repealing and replacing Obamacare should have been easy, but they’re running into the thing that makes politics impossible. Yeah, people hate Obamacare, but they also like free stuff. So Republicans are afraid to take it away. They go along with – maybe because they’re truly socialist now too – Obamacare sans the prepaid credit but with a credit at the end of the year. It will remain unaffordable. While it’s hardly possible to believe, they’ve had a hard time just managing to get that done. Meanwhile, the Democrats cry that the sky is falling if the Republicans manage to “repeal and replace” Obamacare when in fact, it changes little.

The majority of the system will be unchanged, which means there is little to contrast Republicans and Trump with Democrats and Obama. Meanwhile, the structural deficiencies will break the system, and the left will get its universal healthcare system even while the one in Great Britain burns under its own economic failure. Yes, Mike, Republicans are weak. I just don’t know whether their philosophy has become weak, that they actually embrace socialist ideals like a public healthcare system, or are just scared to do the right thing.


Here is the problem, Obamacare was setup to fail and in doing so move to a single (govt) payer system like the (Failed) UK system and all the other failed ones. It was to be a MASSIVE transfer of wealth, as the folks who could afford would pay double or triple to put the folks on it who gets subsidies…ANY govt subsidy is nothing but a black hole. Obama care only failed because the people paying for it could not afford it and the INS companies could not carry them folks who did not pay.

Did ANY ONE wonder why we needed a system for the poor when we already had a medical system for the poor? Well we do and its like Obamacare, FREE but does not come with subsidies and that was the transfer of wealth Obama wanted. The sytem is called Medicaid. So why was Obama going to kill off Medicaid? Simple, its costs too much…

Medicaid, which is FREE and is only paid for by Taxpayers to bail out the sick, lame and LAZY; 2015 cost $522 Billion, 70 MILLION People suckin the teat

Medicare, which Me and YOU have paid in forever and DOES NOT go away, you pay all of your life; 2015 cost $540 Billion, 44 MILLION People

There is NO medical program that can be setup by ANYONE that will not break the bank

Medical care is NOT a Constitutional RIGHT!


Indeed. I believed that from day one. So why then are the Republicans staying with it? Not only will the fail to stop this, they’re going to be blamed for its failure!

And you can take that to the bank!

So why do the Republicans, including Donald Trump, refuse to say so, refuse to present an actual alternative? Why does the Liberty Caucus catch crap from Republicans for saying so and refusing to play ball (until the second round)? I think it’s because Republicans generally speaking are weak – or they’ve gone to the dark side. It’s because they’re afraid of the backlash when people lose their free stuff. Seriously, listen to the whining about the House version of it – pre-existing conditions aren’t covered and lies like that. Of course they are. Republicans are afraid of not giving away free stuff.


The GOP is scrambling to go as far to the left as they think their voters will stand and they know at this time with 70 MILLION on free healthcare if they don’t offer same same then its kaput…but I have been saying since day one: You cannot out FREE the far left, they already have most of the basis covered now, there is little to give except all expensive paid vacations and Green Stamps…

Trump, my bet is he really did not know the reality of it, remember he is NOT a seasoned politico…I suspect he like most thinks it can be done, after all the far left has been saying it for years…and you have to have STUPID written on your forehead in bold not to figure it out.

Add it up: Medicare 522B + Medicaid 540 B in '15 = $1 TRILLION $62 BILLION for 112 Million people. To do everyone $3 TRILLION $184 Billion and in '15 the Feds took in $3.75 TRILLION in Taxes

But the Dems are making the promise and the people are STUPID!!!


We figured it out, you and me, and a lot of other fine folks here at RO. Trump must actually be stupid then and the Republican Party liars.

I think it’s sort of like the Tories losing over their healthcare funding scheme, adding housing to the total for calculating wealth. Ticked off all the folks who want the free lunch and the Tories lost. Deal with reality, and the voters will kick you in the teeth. I think some number Republicans are simply backed into a corner, trapped. They can’t take away the “freebies” because voters can’t stand it and stupidly believe everyone can have everything they need without work. I think some number of them, Trump included, are stupid, like the most of the nation, and think they can simply vote themselves stuff, like healthcare.


Which is PRECISELY why, Alexis de Toqueville wrote in the middle of the 19th Century that, “America will remain a great nation ONLY until the people figure out that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury!”


He didn’t say it. Nor did Alexander Fraser Tytler.

Nor does the word “great” appear in the quote:

> A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.

The earliest found appearance is 1951 by Elmer T. Peterson.

Now here is something Tocqueville did say:

“***When the taste for physical gratifications among them has grown more rapidly than their education . . . the time will come when men are carried away and lose all self-restraint . . . . It is not necessary to do violence to such a people in order to strip them of the rights they enjoy; they themselves willingly loosen their hold. . . . they neglect their chief business which is to remain their own masters.***”


BS. I’m looking at my copy of “Democracy in America” and my quote (from memory) is essentially correct and found in the section he calls, “Philosophical Method of the Americans.”


No Dave, you are either mistaken, or you are lying.

I have the text of that chapter, and the quote is not in here Dave. The word “largesse” (nor “largess”) doesn’t appear at all. He doesn’t talk about public spending anywhere in this Chapter.

You cannot claim what is clearly not true.


Whoa, easy on the “lying” accusations. It’s not good to even speculate on a member’s alleged lack of honesty unless you’ve got some compelling evidence that they are deliberately communicating a falsehood.


In any case, it’s a pretty fair assessment, even if it did originate in 1951 instead of a monarchist’s (Tytler) observations.

Good other quote, AS.


You can kiss my caboose, AS. I’m holding in my hand my hard-back copy of his 394-page treatise “Democracy in America”. I don’t give a hoot what you may have found in some on-line screed.


Dave, you can’t win here. This is the entire chapter you just claimed you quoted from:

> Chapter I
> [HR][/HR]

> I THINK that in no country in the civilized world is less attention paid to philosophy than in the United States. The Americans have no philosophical school of their own, and they care but little for all the schools into which Europe is divided, the very names of which are scarcely known to them.

> Yet it is easy to perceive that almost all the inhabitants of the United States use their minds in the same manner, and direct them according to the same rules; that is to say, without ever having taken the trouble to define the rules, they have a philosophical method common to the whole people.

> To evade the bondage of system and habit, of family maxims, class opinions, and, in some degree, of national prejudices; to accept tradition only as a means of information, and existing facts only as a lesson to be used in doing otherwise and doing better; to seek the reason of things for oneself, and in oneself alone; to tend to results without being bound to means, and to strike through the form to the substance–such are the principal characteristics of what I shall call the philosophical method of the Americans.

> But if I go further and seek among these characteristics the principal one, which includes almost all the rest, I discover that in most of the operations of the mind each American appeals only to the individual effort of his own understanding.

> America is therefore one of the countries where the precepts of Descartes are least studied and are best applied. Nor is this surprising. The Americans do not read the works of Descartes, because their social condition deters them from speculative studies;but they follow his maxims, because this same social condition naturally disposes their minds to adopt them.

> In the midst of the continual movement that agitates a democratic community, the tie that unites one generation to another is relaxed or broken; every man there readily loses all trace of the ideas of his forefathers or takes no care about them.

> Men living in this state of society cannot derive their belief from the opinions of the class to which they belong; for, so to speak, there are no longer any classes, or those which still exist are composed of such mobile elements that the body can never exercise any real control over its members.

> As to the influence which the intellect of one man may have on that of another, it must necessarily be very limited in a country where the citizens, placed on an equal footing, are all closely seen by one another; and where, as no signs of incontestable greatness or superiority are perceived in any one of them, they are constantly brought back to their own reason as the most obvious and proximate source of truth. It is not only confidence in this or that man which is destroyed, but the disposition to trust the authority of any man whatsoever. Everyone shuts himself up tightly within himself and insists upon judging the world from there.

> The practice of Americans leads their minds to other habits, to fixing the standard of their judgment in themselves alone. As they perceive that they succeed in resolving without assistance all the little difficulties which their practical life presents, they readily conclude that everything in the world may be explained, and that nothing in it transcends the limits of the understanding. Thus they fall to denying what they cannot comprehend; which leaves them but little faith for whatever is extraordinary and an almost insurmountable distaste for whatever is supernatural. As it is on their own testimony that they are accustomed to rely, they like to discern the object which engages their attention with extreme clearness; they therefore strip off as much as possible all that covers it; they rid themselves of whatever separates them from it, they remove whatever conceals it from sight, in order to view it more closely and in the broad light of day. This disposition of mind soon leads them to condemn forms, which they regard as useless and inconvenient veils placed between them and the truth.

> The Americans, then, have found no need of drawing philosophical method out of books; they have found it in themselves.The same thing may be remarked in what has taken place in Europe. This same method has only been established and made popular in Europe in proportion as the condition of society has become more equal and men have grown more like one another. Let us consider for a moment the connection of the periods in which this change may be traced.

> In the sixteenth century reformers subjected some of the dogmas of the ancient faith to the scrutiny of private judgment; but they still withheld it from the discussion of all the rest. In the seventeenth century Bacon in the natural sciences and Descartes in philosophy properly so called abolished received formulas, destroyed the empire of tradition, and overthrew the authority of the schools. The philosophers of the eighteenth century, generalizing at length on the same principle, undertook to submit to the private judgment of each man all the objects of his belief.

> Who does not perceive that Luther, Descartes, and Voltaire employed the same method, and that they differed only in the greater or less use which they professed should be made of it? Why did the reformers confine themselves so closely within the circle of religious ideas? Why did Descartes, choosing to apply his method only to certain matters, though he had made it fit to be applied to all, declare that men might judge for themselves in matters philosophical, but not in matters political? How did it happen that in the eighteenth century those general applications were all at once drawn from this same method, which Descartes and his predecessors either had not perceived or had rejected? To what, lastly, is the fact to be attributed that at this period the method we are speaking of suddenly emerged from the schools, to penetrate into society and become the common standard of intelligence; and that after it had become popular among the French, it was ostensibly adopted or secretly followed by all the nations of Europe?

> The philosophical method here designated may have been born in the sixteenth century; it may have been more accurately defined and more extensively applied in the seventeenth; but neither in the one nor in the other could it be commonly adopted. Political laws, the condition of society, and the habits of mind that are derived from these causes were as yet opposed to it.

> It was discovered at a time when men were beginning to equalize and assimilate their conditions. It could be generally followed only in ages when those conditions had at length become nearly equal and men nearly alike.

> The philosophical method of the eighteenth century, then, is not only French, but democratic; and this explains why it was so readily admitted throughout Europe, where it has contributed so powerfully to change the face of society. It is not because the French have changed their former opinions and altered their former manners that they have convulsed the world, but because they were the first to generalize and bring to light a philosophical method by the aid of which it became easy to attack all that was old and to open a path to all that was new.

> If it be asked why at the present day this same method is more rigorously followed and more frequently applied by the French than by the Americans, although the principle of equality is no less complete and of more ancient date among the latter people, the fact may be attributed to two circumstances, which it is first essential to have clearly understood.

> It must never be forgotten that religion gave birth to AngloAmerican society. In the United States, religion is therefore mingled with all the habits of the nation and all the feelings of patriotism, whence it derives a peculiar force. To this reason another of no less power may be added: in America religion has, as it were, laid down its own limits. Religious institutions have remained wholly distinct from political institutions, so that former laws have been easily changed while former belief has remained unshaken. Christianity has therefore retained a strong hold on the public mind in America; and I would more particularly remark that its sway is not only that of a philosophical doctrine which has been adopted upon inquiry, but of a religion which is believed without discussion. In the United States, Christian sects are infinitely diversified and perpetually modified; but Christianity itself is an established and irresistible fact, which no one undertakes either to attack or to defend. The Americans, having admitted the principal doctrines of the Christian religion without inquiry, are obliged to accept in like manner a great number of moral truths originating in it and connected with it. Hence the activity of individual analysis is restrained within narrow limits, and many of the most important of human opinions are removed from its influence.

> The second circumstance to which I have alluded is that the social condition and the Constitution of the Americans are democratic, but they have not had a democratic revolution. They arrived on the soil they occupy in nearly the condition in which we see them at the present day; and this is of considerable importance.

> There are no revolutions that do not shake existing belief, enervate authority, and throw doubts over commonly received ideas. Every revolution has more or less the effect of releasing men to their own conduct and of opening before the mind of each one of them an almost limitless perspective. When equality of conditions succeeds a protracted conflict between the different classes of which the elder society was composed, envy, hatred, and uncharitableness, pride and exaggerated self-confidence seize upon the human heart, and plant their sway in it for a time. This, independently of equality itself, tends powerfully to divide men, to lead them to mistrust the judgment of one another, and to seek the light of truth nowhere but in themselves. Everyone then attempts to be his own sufficient guide and makes it his boast to form his own opinions on all subjects. Men are no longer bound together by ideas, but by interests; and it would seem as if human opinions were reduced to a sort of intellectual dust, scattered on every side, unable to collect, unable to cohere.

> Thus that independence of mind which equality supposes to exist is never so great, never appears so excessive, as at the time when equality is beginning to establish itself and in the course of that painful labor by which it is established. That sort of intellectual freedom which equality may give ought, therefore, to be very carefully distinguished from the anarchy which revolution brings. Each of these two things must be separately considered in order not to conceive exaggerated hopes or fears of the future.

> I believe that the men who will live under the new forms of society will make frequent use of their private judgment, but I am far from thinking that they will often abuse it. This is attributable to a cause which is more generally applicable to democratic countries, and which, in the long run, must restrain, within fixed and sometimes narrow limits, individual freedom of thought.

> I shall proceed to point out this cause in the next chapter.

Your quote, is no where in here. You’ve been proven wrong.


The above quote should suffice. If absolute proof his claim is wrong doesn’t qualify as “falsehood”, then the rule doesn’t exist.


Nonsense! Chapter 1 of his book is entitled “Exterior Form of North America”. I don’t know what site you’re quoting, but it’s NOT from de Toqueville’s book.