Republicans could cost Kari Lake the Arizona Senate race as a new poll shows 15% of G

[Gunny]

Wonderful. Perhaps they should find a Republican candidate.

Republicans could cost Kari Lake the Arizona Senate race as a new poll shows 15% of GOP voters backing her likely Democratic opponent (msn.com)

[Kathianne]

Wonderful. Perhaps they should find a Republican candidate.

Republicans could cost Kari Lake the Arizona Senate race as a new poll shows 15% of GOP voters backing her likely Democratic opponent (msn.com)

I'll not vote for her. She'd be MG in Senate, no thanks.

[SassyLady]

I'm voting for her.

[fj1200]

I'm voting for her.

I guess you've got your own Herschel Walker to vote for. Senator Walker we now call hi... Oh wait.

[Gunny]

I guess you've got your own Herschel Walker to vote for. Senator Walker we now call hi... Oh wait.

Got my own mess to deal with. Freedom Caucus. Who's a member, who's opposing and the consequences of supporting not supporting. I'd hate to see seats go to Dems. On the other hand, I won't vote for any of these obstructionist rightwingnuts.

But don't be so modest MTG

The person I want most gone right now is state-level. AG Ken Paxton. What a piece of work.

[Gunny]

Right on cue: election's at hand and the progs who hate a centrist are trying to once again dredge up allegations Henry Cuellar was cleared of long ago. Guess they found a different angle to attack from

[revelarts]

Kath, Gunny?
Other than some "Freedom Caucus" types NON support for Ukraine & Israels wars what policies of their's do you disagree with?

Or is it more because you don't think the policies are practical or popular enough in the country so your want republicans to generally settle for less?
Or is it mainly the confrontational tactics & personalities that bug you?
A combo?


I mean I get why the "Freedom Caucus" types don't like some of the republican 'leadership'.
I get why some republican leadership don't like the "Freedom Caucus" folks.
But I don't get why some conservatives or republicans rank and file voters are so upset with "Freedom Caucus" folks who are generally promoting the things they say they support.
I mean are there alternate tactics ....or personalities... that could do a better job at getting at the goals?

Or maybe Ukraine and Israels wars and full NATO support, national security is paramount in your minds so that all the other issues should take a back seat?
Do you feel it's just better to have a majority half arse republicans in the driver seat vs a bunch of any democrats. So the radical "Freedom Caucus" should just go along whatever the GOP does just to keep a republican majority?
Seriously I'm really trying to understand the animosity from the right against socalled "Freedom Caucus" types.

[Gunny]

Kath, Gunny?
Other than some "Freedom Caucus" types NON support for Ukraine & Israels wars what policies of their's do you disagree with?

Or is it more because you don't think the policies are practical or popular enough in the country so your want republicans to generally settle for less?
Or is it mainly the confrontational tactics & personalities that bug you?
A combo?


I mean I get why the "Freedom Caucus" types don't like some of the republican 'leadership'.
I get why some republican leadership don't like the "Freedom Caucus" folks.
But I don't get why some conservatives or republicans rank and file voters are so upset with "Freedom Caucus" folks who are generally promoting the things they say they support.
I mean are there alternate tactics ....or personalities... that could do a better job at getting at the goals?

Or maybe Ukraine and Israels wars and full NATO support, national security is paramount in your minds so that all the other issues should take a back seat?
Do you feel it's just better to have a majority half arse republicans in the driver seat vs a bunch of any democrats. So the radical "Freedom Caucus" should just go along whatever the GOP does just to keep a republican majority?
Seriously I'm really trying to understand the animosity from the right against socalled "Freedom Caucus" types.

Isolationism is a loser that has ALWAYS cost more in the long term for a few minutes of false security now. Obstructing government is a loser. Politicians are sent to Washington to govern, not obstruct.

[SassyLady]

Isolationism is a loser that has ALWAYS cost more in the long term for a few minutes of false security now. Obstructing government is a loser. Politicians are sent to Washington to govern, not obstruct.

They are sent there to represent US citizens. Not foreign politic powers or other corrupt politicians.

[revelarts]

Isolationism is a loser that has ALWAYS cost more in the long term for a few minutes of false security now.

So what i'm getting from this is that US military, arms And support of friendlies around the world is what's more important than basically anything.
I guess, We'll all die if we don't, or something close.
(1 question I always have here is, is there ANY limit to this expense? 500 billion, a trillion 2 trillion? X% of GDP? per country? per conflict?
"Whatever it takes" seems a bit irresponsible to me.)

Obstructing government is a loser. Politicians are sent to Washington to govern, not obstruct.

So what i'm getting from this is that "obstructing" the kinds of things conservatives say they DO NOT want is bad, if it hinders govt "governing" the people overall.
The details don't really matter that much, the government machine/operations should not be obstructed in general.
That's bad for America somehow.

ok, Interesting.
I don't get it but, Ok.