48 Hour Rule still applies, but here's a list of why Mike Johnson may be actually good
(media.greatawakening.win)
🏆 - WINNING - 🏆
Comments (52)
sorted by:
He is a Trump supporter, so he is anti-schumer. All good.
Trump is a Johnson supporter
That could be taken a couple different ways…
That depends on the position you're coming from.
Feels like a Big Mike post
For what it is worth. A short breakdown on the guy now with the gavel. THE NEW SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
Not all good. https://communities.win/c/TheDonald/p/17rSxLKFoB/fucks-sake-i-hate-republicans-ne/c
There is only one Trump so his mixed record is the best we can hope for?
It's barely been 48 minutes and his first order of business is to fund the corrupt Israeli government? Fool me once.. We seriously gonna fall for it again? It's Zionism or bust, apparently. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but this looks like the same old.
No matter who got the gavel, they were going to support Israel....we have to look past that to all the other good he has the potential to do in this role.
I am seriously tired of looking past things when it comes to people in our government.
Do I need to fish out all the times critics were silenced on these bases with McCarthy? It'll take some time, but if I have to dedicate that time then I will.
He actually espoused supporting another country faster than McCarthy did.
I hear you, and feel same way, but lets not pretend that we don't have a date with destiny, so to speak. The train that is the collapse of the America we know now left the station a long time ago, it's headed our way and their is noting that can stop it, and no matter who speaker is, it want change that fact.
Maybe we don't empower other countries on our way down that path then. Pretty stupid strategy. After all, if they use those funds to gain power now, you can't exactly take that power away even if the USD went down to 0.
Yeah, I have to keep my mind on that narrative. Reality is biblical.
Does he have an Israeli passport?
Loses me at "opposes gay marriage". Why the fuck are we still even taking a stance in favor of government ordained marriage one way or the other? The way forward is to reword "marriage" to "civil union" and let people figure it out for themselves from there. Government ordained marriage is a blatant violation of the First Amendment as marriage is traditionally a RELIGIOUS practice. How people want to identify their bonds is THEIR business. No one gets to deice who is and is not allowed to be married least of all, the fucking government. And no, don't come at me with "muh nuclear family values" crap. People need to choose those values FOR THEMSELVES and no amount of government programs is going to force people to accept the straight, monogamous, evangelical Christian Conservative lifestyle as the ONLY way to live. Quite the opposite as we have seen.
If you use government to force complacence to your ideology, you are the bad guy. Period.
Otherwise, everything else this guy has done makes sense to me. All things considered, he is the best possible pick, but needs to change his tune to "Abolish Government ordained marriage". That should be something every freedom loving American recognizes as a big fuckin mistake overall.
Marriage historically means a man and woman.
I have an old dictionary that was not “revised” to fit a narrative
Right, but that should be decided by your church. HOWEVER.
The reason the government is involved is specifically because there are certain tax and insurance implications if you are married.
It doesn't suss out for same-sex marriages though. The reason married people get tax breaks is the assumption that those married people will go on to create future taxpayers. No, not every marriage. You will get your couples that can't or choose not to have kids, but statistically, they will, and that's what the government is counting on.
Same sex couples do not create future taxpayers. They sometimes adopt, but that's not the same, because those kids already exist. The numbers of same sex couples that go on to have a sperm donor or surrogate mothers, whose babies will then go on to be future taxpayers themselves are likely to be so small they are statistically insignificant.
SO I do agree that marriage should be a legal definition, but it should be a legal and religious definition. For all the others, they should have their civil unions and avoid the whole rigamarole.
If they want to find their heathen fake ass church to call them "married" as a mockery of God, that's also, unfortunately covered by the First.
I'm conflicted on the whole thing. The Founders, I don't think expected us to let the lunatic fringe take things this far.
One cannot pick and choose what the founders did or didn't expect, because that opens up to hypocrisy when criticizing stances like the left that uses this exact argument to reference modern day weaponry.
The problem is that the government got involved.
How many married men and women will go without their tax benefits to have the separation that there was always meant to be?
There is a difference between a legal union (protected by the Constitution regardless of chromosomes) and religious marriage which is between a man and a woman (protected by the Constitution as per the freedom of religion).
Oh get over it already and accept the fact that homosexuality is a "gateway deviancy" into all the morally degenerate crap we see going on today. Every single time in history the homosexuality became openly accepted, it's always led to various forms of degeneracy, with the end goal being pedophila in every case. Ancient Greece/Rome, Ancient Japan, Weimar Germany, etc. etc.
Every single time, it always ends the same. I personally believe it's a mental illness and there's probably a cure for it, but regardless, the historical evidence speaks for itself. Homosexuality, leads to rampant degeneracy.
EVERY SINGLE TIME.
And every time it's brought up on here, you come running to defend it. Get over it and accept that if nothing else, it's a gateway to degeneracy. If two people wanna be queer behind closed doors, fine. That's between them and God and I agree the government has no right to decide what happens in a private home.
That's why I'm against things like the old Texas "Anti-sodomy law" that let Texas Police break into someone's house if they were accused of being gay (similar to red flag laws).
But open acceptance of homosexuality has led to nothing but degeneracy where we have queers in San Fransisco singing about forcibly converting children into being gay, public schools brainwashing children into being gay, trans, non-binary, etc. etc. and pedophile drag queens dressing up as LITERAL DEMONS, reading gay propaganda to children in libraries.
When you're defending homosexuality, YOU ARE DEFENDING THAT DEVIANCY.
nah bro
this is where you lost me because you're going to die on a bridge you don't even need to be standing on.
It has been decided what a marriage is and who can participate and what the implications of entering that arrangement are. period.
Everything else about the government choosing to encourage/discourage a certain culture is ridiculous.
A government exists to enforce the written (and sorties unwritten) rules of a civil society.
Uncivilized, mentally ill liberals who want to marry their dog or whatever asshattery liberals enjoy are free to set up a parallel society in whatever socialist utopia they want.
But they don't want to do that. They want to bitch and moan about the very things that made a civil society civil to begin with WHILE LIVING IN THE CIVIL SOCIETY.
Get the fuck out and make your own society with whatever backwoods bullshit you want.
Why? Because now they're open about wanting to fuck children. That's why. They couldn't be happy. No, they had to push it. Now they don't deserve a damn thing.
Well said!
" What will probably happen is everyone will pretend this new guy will be great, he'll say a few good things, maybe do 1 or 2 good things, but after a few months everyone will realize they don't elect good ppl as speaker. Since.. they're almost all corrupt and evil. It's a uniparty. This guy supported Zelensky and stood with Ukraine(though didn't seem to vote to fund it), the first thing he wants to do is support Israel(America first haha), and he pushed for ppl getting vaccines. That's what I've seen so far.. In 5 mins. "
https://truthsocial.com/@Libertas/posts/111297486046403067
He also claims to be pro freedom but went after medical marijuana. So he's either getting pharma dollars or simping for them in hopes of getting some.
Or he could just be against drugs...
He could be but that doesn't translate to taking away others rights to them. It's hypocritical.
In general I am against drugs. But I advocate for marijuana over anything else pharmaceutical or recreational. It is safer than any pill, drug, or alcohol and is natural. Why is it illegal again?
Look. I would use it for my back if I was able to do that and not have to worry about drug tests, having it mess with my work, or endangering my driving. I've used it before in legal places when I wasn't working in jobs that required clearances or working with sensitive devices, and while it made my pain go away it slowed my reactions down and made me the slightest bit paranoid.
Unless and until someone figures out how to tell if me or someone else is too impaired to work or drive I will never be for recreational use. Medical use would be fine with the exception that if anyone with a real prescription (not some California special fake one) is pulled over while smoking or impaired that they lose their driver license for some time and go through the same crap people with DUIs go through.
There needs to be a quick test that doesn't show pos/neg but some level of THC that would classify you as impaired. If the pro weed people really wanted to completely legalize it they would work on that to take away any arguments the government might have, and to help users to know when they can't drive.
Weed might be safer pharmaceutically, but not for operating machinery or driving. One off my old friends used to be a Dallas County cop. He had a love/hate relationship with weed. He LOVED it when he had to go break up a party and there was only weed and no alcohol. People were cool, didn't fight, and even offered him food. Alcohol parties always had screaming and fighting. When he pulled over someone he suspected of being high on weed he always told me it was easy to figure out - they were doing 30-40mph LESS than everyone else. That's rear-end territory on an interstate.
Besides - while I don't believe it is a gateway drug in all cases (there are always some people that can't do anything without overdoing it), I do believe extended heavy use just makes you lazy and stupid. I don't care either way if someone does that to themselves though. Same with alcohol - I enjoy a drink every once in a while (a couple times a month or so), but I'll never drink so much as to become an alcoholic - or even get drunk. I haven't done that in over 30 years. I don't care a lick if someone else wants to harm themselves, but if it endangers me I start to care.
That's what I have been saying all along. Sundance from conservative tree house said a long time ago that if someone receives the support of of RNC Big Club members, that is sign that they are not our friends.
Help me understand this: Why did Johnson get support of so many republicans that would not support Jordan because of his resistance to Ukraine funding. Why did so many rep support him that are essentially in bed with Mil Indus Complex.
My rep, Vern Buchanan who never met a mil spending bill he did not like, I assume supported Johnson since it was unanimous right? He did not support Jordan.
He seems to be a normal human being.
Well, in today’s world that makes him a “far right extremist”
And… he might be an anon.
Will he release the J6 tapes? Not “sometime later” but NOW!
There's gotta be SOMETHING imperfect about the guy, let's be real
He laughed at them all so he is very good.
Great stuff, thanks for posting anon
All that mattered to me was that President Trump support him. I'm not voting for ANYONE that President Trump doesn't support.
Can’t just focus this blindly especially Trump could purposely chose a bad one
Did he say he wanted to support Israel? if so, that record you gave implies something much different in terms of support other than money and arms. Israel could mean just the people. To get them free of the deep state.
My favorite + ‘Is outwardly opposed by kristol, traitor kinzinger, and clown romney.
This is the best way to judge a man……see how the media and uniparty excoriate him….!
I'd say an important part about the uniparty, is that it's not always clear who's in it. If I was part of the cabal here are some things I would do concerning the uniparty:
Yep, one big shell game, you truly nailed it.
Yeah, but all these democrats are here clapping for him getting voted in. I'm wary of anything democrats applaud.
It's a chess piece move. The speaker is 3rd in line to be President. If they jail/house arrest 45, there is enough evidence on Biden/Kamala to have them quickly deposed. Mike Johnson can immediately pardon 45. It's an insurance policy. Check mate.