Republicans cannot govern and here is what I think is why

The People don't want to be governed. They want to be left alone and the government fulfill its constitutional duties. It's constitutional duties do not include controlling the personal lives of the People.

 

Governance from Congress is done by the two houses, the House and the Senate, so much of the OP is meant to address the legislature, as it is focused on that aspect of governance. I didn't make this clear, and I should have.

Here's what I'm talking about.

Repubs couldn't get a rules bill passed, tried 7 times.

3 tries would be incompetence, but 7? That's a disaster, and historic.

In the video, below, Rep. Jim McGovern triggers MAGA Republican Chip Roy and causes him to lose it during a committee hearing. McGovern destroys House Republicans over their inability to govern thanks to MAGA Republicans, House Speaker Mike Johnson's inability to control MAGA extremists and so much more. McGovern's observation of the poor state of the GOP infuriates MAGA clown Chip Roy, and it causes him to reach his breaking point.



Transcript:

This is the most ineffective, incompetent majority, I think, in American history. It has been nearly an entire year, almost since anything that we have done in the Rules Committee has gone to the president's desk. And the last time it did happen, it was with Democratic votes. Republicans have tried and failed to pass their own rules seven times. This Congress. This House has been stuck at a standstill because of their infighting. All they care about is silly censures, sham impeachments, and partisan brinkmanship. And this is not what the American people want. And come November, I believe there's going to be a reckoning around here. Let me just say that I can't believe what's happening. You know, this is our second Rules Committee meeting of the week, and it's the fourth time. Let me repeat the fourth time. A bill to reauthorize FISA has come before our committee. I mean, give me a break. The American people want effective government. What my Republican friends are giving them, quite frankly, is a circus.

Before this Congress, it had been 20 years since a rule failed. It's been 50 years, half a century since we've seen this many rules go down. And Republicans have done it seven times. 1 or 2, three times, maybe, that's just incompetence, but seven seven is a disaster. Seven is paralysis! It means weeks and weeks of sitting around doing nothing because Republicans can't get their house in order and do their job and do the job that they were sent here to do. Nineteen Republicans voted against a Republican rule yesterday, 19, including the member that managed debate on the rule.

I don't think that has ever happened in the history of the committee. I mean, it's genuinely shocking to me. This member voted for the rule in committee, but then voted against it on the floor. Now I've heard of "I was for it before I was against it." But this is nuts. The rules majority turned the keys over to someone who wanted to crash the car. During debate, I think he even came pretty close to telling the rest of the conference to vote no on the rule. Now, I'm not. Actually, I'm not. I'm actually sure Mr. Roy was aware of the power they entrusted him with as manager of the rule. He could have offered an amendment to the rule on the floor to do whatever the hell he wanted to do, including rewriting the bill entirely, and it might have passed.

The person they picked to send to the floor to represent their position, The speaker's position, couldn't even be trusted to do it. No wonder we can't get anything done. I mean, this is crazy. I've never seen anything like this in my life. And here's some free advice; Find out if your manager supports the rule before you send him or her to the floor, to manage the rule, and to waste all of our time to bring this rule to the floor and let it fail, I mean, does the whip's office need to have an arithmetic and arithmetic teacher brought in? We've heard some testimony on this bill three different times, and instead of running this place like professionals, Republicans wasted our time. And for what? They barely changed the bill. I mean, it would be laughable if this wasn't the United States House of Representatives. And now we are here for a fourth time.

So it would be funny if it weren't turning the world's greatest deliberative body into a circus. But they are. Anyone with two eyes and a brain can understand what's going on. Republicans cannot govern, and voters across the country are going to walk into the voting booth and ask themselves, do they want the adults in charge or not? And they are going to vote accordingly? And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

I take a couple of minutes to respond to the ranking member. The fact of the matter is, nobody in real America gives two rat's rear ends about whether or not someone votes on a rule. Manages a rule, goes down to the floor, and then votes on a rule. Nobody in America cares to see the continued perpetuation of what this body, this Congress, has been doing to the American people for generations. Racking up 34 and one-half trillion dollars of debt, endangering the American people with wide open borders and all of the stuff that this Congress has been doing endlessly. And the fact is, the most American people don't care about those procedures. They want to see the result. So no apology. There's nothing written in the Bible. There's nothing written in the Constitution. There's nothing sacrosanct about how this place is supposed to operate. Because what has been doing in this body for far too long is not working. It's just not, no matter who's in charge, no matter who's in the majority. Because this isn't about shirts and skins. The American people are sick of shirts and skins. This is about questioning the regime in this town that wants to decide, through the intelligence community, that there's only one way to do this stuff. And that you can't question it. - Mr.. Mr. Chair. The gentleman from Massachusetts. First of all. I say to the gentleman, Texas, I'm not asking him to apologize. I was just making a comment. I think the American people do care that this Congress seems incapable of getting anything done at all.

As I said at my outset, nearly ten months before this committee. Which all consequential legislation goes through. As reported, a bill to the floor that has actually become law. I mean, I don't know, maybe people sent you here to do nothing, but my constituents sent me here to actually help solve problems, to get things done. I don't disagree that there are issues regarding the FISA bill, and I don't know how you would have I don't know how whether we would have voted the same way on some of these amendments. I certainly support the warrant amendment.

But that's not the point. We're just wasting time. And, you know, to sit through this is the fourth hearing to bring a bill to the floor and to have it go down to me seems like a colossal waste of time.

Then Chip Roy rebuts with the usual right wing talking points, pontificating about the debt, yadda yadda, missing the point, then McGovern continues:

So I'm not asking the gentleman [Rep Chip Roy] for an apology. I mean, the I don't know why the gentleman wanted to be on this committee. If he's not going to try to help move legislation to the floor. But that's the decision that your, your leadership has made. But, you know, but I the gentleman could do whatever the heck he wants. I was just making an observation, and apparently I got under his skin. But with that, Mister Chairman, I yield back and have no further comment.


This is why I mean when I say 'Republicans cannot govern'.

 

Wrong Congress does not govern. It passes rules that are to be enforced by one set of bureaucrats or the other. That is not governing. The bureaucracy governs. The only thing we need congress to do right now is ride herd on our run away bureaucracy through its oversight powers. We have more than enough rules and regulations the majority of which are never enforced unless someone crosses the bureaucracy. There are simply too many of them and the majority of them are inconsequential.

 

Oh stop it. Congress governs in a number of ways, committee oversight, subcommittees, investigations, income tax review, subpoenas, and on and on.

I mean, this isn't even debatable. You're being silly, now stop it.

If you respond, I won't answer because it's not debatable, it's a fact.

The White House, exec staff, cabinets, bicameral legislatures, all are aspects of the umbrella called 'government'.

Government, capiche? Government GOVERNS by the 'consent of the GOVERNED'.

Remember?

What, do you need to be told this?

Give me a break.

 

You called me simplistic? I thought you were talking about my arguments. That is after all what we are supposed to argue about, not call each other names. If you felt that I was calling you simplistic then rest assured, I wasn't.

Then why post on a forum at all?

You realize that you just proved my point about assuming right?

Do you remember my very first question to you? The one you didn't answer? "What do you think is "societies big problems"?"

It is a question that is relevant to your "can't govern" bit.

And yes, this is a large country. Which is why we have States with their own governments. Why do you think we have States within this country with their own individual governments? States which have the power to override the Federal Government for certain things? Why are we not organized like Italy? Or Britain? Or any other country in the world?

 

Republicans can't govern !!! -- Let's not forget President Reagan, a democrat turned republican who beat an incumbent president. Then after 4 years of governing the voters re-elected him. Yeah, Reagan won 49 states. And after 8 years as president the voters elected his republican VP.

 

Funny I don't recalled having voted for probably 99% of the people who govern this country. Congress at best does a minimal amount of governance of those that govern the rest of us whenever they are in the mood which is seldom.

 

Now you're nitpicking. You know what I meant. Since the distinction isn't critical to the OP, I made a stylistic choice in my verbiage.

To see if there are more compelling arguments than my own.

Again, if you can't handle nuance, find another thread that suits you. If you can't, that's not a reason not to post--that's your problem, not mine.

No, I cleared up a confusion on your part.

Sure

No, you are conflating 'related' with 'relevance'. One does not equal the other. It's related, but it's really a subject for another thread, i.e., the differences in what Dems and Repubs focus on in terms of big problems. But the premise of the OP is not dependent on exploring that difference. The OP is about the fact that, overall, Republicans, especially those in the House, can't govern. What the big problems each party focus on is not at issue, nor is it necessary to explore for the premise of the OP.

Not sure what you mean, but if you think state law overrides federal law, that's false, and this is due to the supremacy clause of the Constitution.

For your edification:

The Supremacy Clause is located in Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. It reads:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

This clause establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.

What are you talking about? I can, off hand, think of a dozen or so countries that have a federalist system of government.

Some notable examples (for your edification):

1. United States: One of the most well-known federal countries, with powers shared between the federal government and the 50 states. I know, didn't need to list this one, but it is one of them.
   
   
2. Germany: Comprised of 16 states (Bundesländer), Germany’s federal system grants significant legislative authority to its states, especially in areas like education and law enforcement.
   
   
3. Australia: Has a federal structure with six states and two territories, where each state and territory has its own government that operates alongside the federal government.
   
   
4. Canada: Composed of 10 provinces and three territories, Canada’s provinces have a wide range of powers separate from the federal government, including healthcare and education.
   
   
5. India: A federal republic with 28 states and 8 Union territories, India grants its states considerable control over local affairs based on the constitution.
   
   
6. Brazil: Consists of 26 states and one federal district. The states enjoy autonomy and have their own governments and legislatures.
   
   
7. Switzerland: Known for its strong tradition of decentralization, Switzerland’s federal system includes 26 cantons that have significant autonomy.
   
   
8. Mexico: Comprises 32 federative entities (31 states and one federal district). Each state has its own constitution and government.
   
   
9. Russia: Officially a federation with 85 federal subjects, including republics, krais, oblasts, cities of federal importance, an autonomous oblast, and autonomous okrugs.
   
   
10. Belgium: A federal state divided into three communities and three regions, each with significant powers particularly in areas like education, health, and welfare.
    
    
11. Nigeria: Has a federal system with 36 states and one Federal Capital Territory. Each state has significant autonomy under the constitution.
    
    
12. Malaysia: Consists of 13 states and three federal territories, with state governments having authority over matters not reserved for the federal government.
    

So, not sure what your 'point' was.

 

It's a governing body. There is no other point to be had. You're trying dig a rabbit hole where there isn't one.

 

Your point is irrelevant to the OP. Congress is a governing body, and is part of the US Government: 'Government', capiche? There no single agency that governs ALL of America (save for the executive branch and it has limitations). Our system is decentralized, but you can't say that, just because one segment doesn't govern all of America, therefore, the agency under scrutiny is not 'therefore' a governing body. That's not even logical.

 

You admitted that you were calling me simplistic. You didn't make a "stylistic choice in your verbiage" because "the distinction isn't critical to the OP", you made a "stylistic choice in your verbiage" to avoid violating the forum rules. You see, if I wanted to call you names, I would do so, directly. I have no problem with gaining infraction points. If I feel like someone deserves to be called a name then I will do it, no hiding behind "stylistic choice of verbiage". I have done so in the past, and I will continue to do so. Points be damned. So when I refer to your posts as being simplistic, then that is what I actually mean. As the old saying goes, I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. I don't couch my arguments with hidden meanings.

You will never find any. Forums are not like that.

There is no nuance in your claim of "Republicans cannot govern".

And again, you assume. I keep telling you that you have a problem with assumptions. Are you ever going to learn?

Funny coming from the person that talks about "nuance".

Except that it doesn't always. Just ask any Sanctuary State. The Supremacy Clause applies to the powers, and only to the powers, that is granted to the Federal Government. Those powers are outlined in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. If the Federal Government goes beyond those powers then the States can ignore Federal Law.

Having a federalist system does not mean that we are set up the same way as those other countries. Thought you liked nuance? Yet here you are hollering in generalities.

 

You are making claims that are fictitious. Both house and senate are deliberative bodies not enforcement bodies except when necessary to rein in the executive branch and its entirely excessive number of agencies.

 

A deliberative body and an enforcement body are both aspects of governance, hence the term "government".

Capiche?

 

I do not know much about, "Birchers", the John Birch Society. How are Trumpers and Birchers the same?

 

Of course I do. It is you who confound them.

 

I kindof agree. Historically, Republicans are known for governing with the same sort of authoritarian policies as Democrats of late, just with a more right wing slant. But the right wing base is increasingly of the 'leave us the hell alone!' persuasion. Or maybe they always have been, but now they're realizing that Republicans are no more interested in actual freedom then Democrats. Folks like me, and I think republican voters in general, just want less governing. That of course appears as 'worse' governing to people who think we still don't have enough rules...

 

Well, since Democrats "governing" has led to high disapproval numbers for Biden AND 65% of Americans saying the country is going in the wrong direction, we already know how they govern, destroying the country. In case you forgot, it is Democrats who are the ones governing and destroying the country.

 

Silva, do not take this wrong and become offended. I naturally like anyone from Brazil. I myself am married to a Brazilian and have spent 5 years of my life in Brazil. From Mambucaba on the Green Coast to Porto Seguro where Cabral discovered Brazil. I know much of the country, knowledge only gained by living there. My home was happily in Sta Rosa of Niteroi. I also know that the educational system in Brazil is very young compared to the USA, the first university being founded in 1920. So this is my introduction to you, we have things in common, if you lived in Brazil.

Silva, I will some of your words, not to mock you but using your words should make you understand and educate you as well if in fact english is your second language.

Silva, there is a fundamental flaw in your comment that you have based the premise of your OP on. That flaw is a flaw most every Democrat make in there criticisms. Silva, you only heard, remembered, or learned part of what you are basing your opinion on. Unless of course you are simply copying someone else's opinion.

Ronald Reagan did not state, "government is the problem". Silva, your comment is like saying, "Ronald Reagan said, the". Of course Ronald Reagan said the, but it does not mean anything by itself and that is exactly the problem with the statement you attribute to Ronald Reagan. This is a mistake most democrats make. So do not feel offended, I guess we can say, it is human nature. To make errors until corrected.

Silva, it is wrong to quote a portion of a comment or idea in isolation. We call that cherry picking. Cherry picking changes the meaning of statements.

Silva, you can thank me now for educating you. Feel to return the favor in kind.

Sorry for no link, but I being a conservative know Ronald Reagan and loved his first inaugural speech which is where this comes from.

Reagan was addressing the present crisis and the government role in the crisis. The crisis was runaway inflation, The crisis was unemployment. The crisis was economic. The crisis was a government over-spending and over-taxing.

Silva, if you are simply searching the internet for the confirmation of ideas you will always find a website which may wrongly, non-factually confirm those ideas.

Silva, to present a factual premise, an accurate synopsis of politics, you education has to be much more than listening to television, developing an idea in your head, then attempting to confirm the idea with a google search.

The only way to know American politics is to live them and pay attention throughout ones life. Then, supplement that knowledge with reading. Listening to talk shows. Multiple talk shows from both side of politics.

Believe me, I do not wish to see some of my favorite people be wrong about what they speak. I love Brazil, my children were born in Brazil. Some of my best friends are in Brazil.

Reagan did not define the Republican's, Conservatives founding principle as, "government is the problem"

The entire premise of this OP, Opinion Piece, Thread, just fell apart, there are no pieces to pick up and put back together.

 

Clearly, you don't. I think the evidence is now clear on that point.

 

That's what you get for thinking. Enforcement is the executive branch and always has been constitutionally. Congress is the deliberative and legislative branch. I understand your confusion. Democrats have been messing up and conflating these two for years.

 

You do realize that just about everyone on this forum is anonymous, right? Surely you could have realized that Patricio Da Silva is not my real name, and you should have read my 'information' page on my profile, right?

Now, if you had done that, you'd realize that I was born in Texas, and am a big fan of Brazilian Jazz. And, the last name is 'Da Silva', not 'Silva'. Da Silva is one of the most common surnames in Brazil, and it's kind of like the Brazilian equivalent of Smith in America. As a fan of Brazilian jazz music and culture, I chose the name, Patricio which is Patrick in Portuguese (and Spanish) because of my Irish/Scottish heritage, and Da Silva because it's the most common Brazilian name.

The point is, I'm as American as anyone on this forum, and English is my first language. I've explained this before, a few years back, and posted it on my profile.

Now then, moving on.....

With due respect, I've been on this earth for 73 years, and voted for Reagan as during his years, I was a republican. In the 60s/70s, I was a democrat. Switched to moderate Republican conservatism during Ford/Reagan, and switched back being a democrat by the time HW Bush arrived.

I know how Republican conservatives think, I used to be one. They are fundamentally not really true conservatives, not these days, they are neoliberals. I believe Reagan, though claiming to be a conservative, was really a neoliberal. A neoliberal believes that anything the Government does, private enterprise can do it better, they believe 'government is the problem'. and that the panacea for all of our economic ills is the free market. Now, don't get me wrong, the opposite, socialism, is not something I subscribe to, either, but no republican will tell anyone that. Now, Reagan did say that quote, and I think he meant it, and that he said it, he is fair game for it.

Now, moderate republicans I don't think believe it, I don't think Ford believed it, but I do think Reagan believed it, and from his presidency, onward, the ship of the American state took a decidedly neoliberal turn. Especially this crew of republicans, the MAGA types, who control the Republican party, today. I see it in their replies, how they think, how they reason, their solutions, etc. Take Trump, for example, his 'infrastructure' ideas largely had corporations building roads and putting tolls on them to pay for them. This is neoliberal 'government is the problem' kind of thinking,

So, now that you know these things about me, you no longer have to be patronizing towards me. Okay?

 

Okay, and now that I know something about you, I know you have no excuse getting everything wrong.

My facts stand in stark contrast to the errors in your thread.

Like I said, it all fell to pieces.

You also got the Birchers wrong as well.

Your entire opinion is wrong and the facts I presented, you have no reply for.

Tomorrow, I will repost so you can clearly see how your premise is false.

Claiming AI, proved you right, claiming AI qualified your OP, is a nice try, but I see it for what it is.

A poor attempt at making your false premise infalliable.

So many errors you made. I csnt wait to read more

 

Lot's of luck my friend. There are few people on this forum whose level of self righteousness and astounding rock solid belief in errant nonsense exceeds Paddy's

 

Bingo! You just hit it out of the park. The left wants to "govern" not serve, even thou they label themselves "public servants". I think many of them picture a docile and passive public following the myriad rules they pass to keep the public "under control". "Just do what we say and everything will be fine and while give you lots of good stuff" seems to be their undercover platform. When a state (California) wants to create a commission to govern fast food restaurants it's gone too far, IMHO. They're trying to kill of the gig economy and making tougher and tougher to hire freelancers for short terms.

 

Vacuous drivel.

All aspects of governance.

You can't take a horse to water and make him drink, so I'll leave it there.You can have the last word.

I mean, I could say the sky is blue and you could say it isn't and if you keep saying it isn't, there isn't much I can do about it.

Later.