╌>

The Republican Speaker of the House Battle

  

Category:  Entertainment

By:  kavika  •  9 months ago  •  358 comments

The Republican Speaker of the House Battle


A few weeks ago we witnessed a first in American political history, a Speaker of the House has been canned. In the aftermath of this historic event, we have had a clown show of epic proportions taking place in the cradle of democracy.

Who will be the first Speaker of the House to follow the historic shit canning of Kevin McCarthy, the pride of Bakersfield, CA? The first out of the gate was Steve Scalise who begged his fellow Republicans for the chance to become Speaker and a Pinada at the same time. Thankfully he was saved from this humiliation as he was rejected by the ultra-far-right wacko's. 

Next up is Jim Benghazi Jordan, he of useless and pointless investigations whose main attribute is screaming and hollering while conducting losing investigations. (he is quite good at pounding the table to no avail). Currently, Jimmy is begging his fellow right-wingers for their vote. There was a report this AM that there are twenty ''hard no's'' against Jimmy. It doesn't look good for him at this point, but it's a clown show so anything is possible. If he is rejected the cradle of democracy will be drifting in the wind with no solution in sight, and the clown show will continue unabated. 

Secretly, a behind-the-door meeting has been taking place between Dems and Republicans in an attempt to solve this historic problem and return the US to some form of sanity which may be a stretch at this point. The King Makers have settled on a new candidate to break the logjam. Compared with the current crop is light years ahead in both intelligence and political savvy. 

If Jimmy is rejected this is your new candidate

512


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
1  author  Kavika     9 months ago

An epic election with far-ranging consequences.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  Kavika @1    9 months ago

more like an epic rwnj shit show...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.1  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @1.1    9 months ago

apparently it's an ongoing series now...

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
2  evilone    9 months ago

The Democrats are all lined up to raise huge reelection campaign donations with slogans like, "there are no more moderate Republicans" if they cave to Jordan. They will also tout his noncompliance with the Jan 6th committee and his continued commitment to keep his head up Trumps rectum. While this will only bring sneers from the Jordan populist base, it WILL energize Democrats to vote and probably swing a few moderate independents. I'm not certain running further to the right is the way to win more Republican voters.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2.1  author  Kavika   replied to  evilone @2    9 months ago

3rd quarter fund raising has Biden at $71 million more than Trump, Desantis and Haley combined.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
2.1.1  evilone  replied to  Kavika @2.1    9 months ago

That's interesting. I'll be checking in on some House races next year. I'm expecting the Dems to claim the House after this dysfunction barring any last minute craziness. 

We should be hearing the results of the first floor vote any time now. They are taking attendance. Jordan is not expected to reach 217 in the first vote. Rumors had 20 hold-outs still this morning.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
2.1.2  George  replied to  evilone @2.1.1    9 months ago

That is hilarious, I don't see where there is any difference now than then.

Jay Leno JayWalking: Civics Test - YouTube

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  evilone @2.1.1    9 months ago

Dems are off to a rough start losing Governor of Louisiana.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
2.1.4  evilone  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.3    9 months ago
Dems are off to a rough start losing Governor of Louisiana.

I concur. That's not the best foot to start out on, but they had to know keeping that seat was a long shot in a state that went for Trump by 20%.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.5  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.3    9 months ago

but, but, what about...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  evilone @2.1.4    9 months ago

The Democratic Governor has been in office since 2016.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @2.1.5    9 months ago
but, but, what about..

When I have a free day, I'll teach you about elections.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.1.8  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.3    9 months ago
Dems are off to a rough start losing Governor of Louisiana.

That's a typically ridiculous attempt to deflect.

This thread is supposed to be about the process of electing the next Speaker of the House.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
2.1.9  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.7    9 months ago
I'll teach you about erections.

No thanx.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
2.1.10  evilone  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.6    9 months ago
The Democratic Governor has been in office since 2016.

Yeah? So? What's your point here other than deflection?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  evilone @2.1.10    9 months ago

just to point out that votes for President are different than other votes.

 
 
 
Michael C.
Freshman Expert
2.1.12  Michael C.  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.3    9 months ago
Dems are off to a rough start losing Governor of Louisiana.

What does that have to do with House speaker?

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
2.1.13  Krishna  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.7    9 months ago
When I have a free day, I'll teach you about elections.

Please don't.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
2.1.14  Krishna  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.11    9 months ago
just to point out that votes for President are different than other votes.

OMG--- that's shocking!   Quelle surprise! Could you explain further how that's so?

(Asking for a friend)

 
 
 
Michael C.
Freshman Expert
2.2  Michael C.  replied to  evilone @2    9 months ago
f they cave to Jordan.

What makes you think the Dems will "Cave" to Jordan? 

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
2.2.1  evilone  replied to  Michael C. @2.2    9 months ago
What makes you think the Dems will "Cave" to Jordan? 

The Dems won't. The Republicans were looking to, but rumor news seems to indicate too many hold out still. We'll see later today.

 
 
 
Michael C.
Freshman Expert
2.3  Michael C.  replied to  evilone @2    9 months ago

I'm not certain running further to the right is the way to win more Republican voters.

I usually don't watch this sort of thing but today I did watch most of it. 

One of my main take-a-ways was how many Republicans really don't like Jordan. (And I believe he is one of the more extreme Republicans. (Is he one of the Republicans that still hasn't admitted that "the election was NOT stolen?)

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
2.3.1  evilone  replied to  Michael C. @2.3    9 months ago
One of my main take-a-ways was how many Republicans really don't like Jordan.

One of my main take-a-ways is how many Republicans don't like each other. That conference has issues that are manifesting now.

And I believe he is one of the more extreme Republicans.

He is. He's a co-founding member of the Freedom Caucus.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3  JohnRussell    9 months ago

Jim Jordan colluded with a traitor. If he gets put in a high office like Speaker Of The House it will be a disgraceful day for the United States. 

Oh, he's also a known conspiracy monger. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
3.1  Ozzwald  replied to  JohnRussell @3    9 months ago
Oh, he's also a known conspiracy monger. 

Not to mention he has shown contempt for the same Congress he is a member of.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @3    9 months ago
 put in a high office like Speaker Of The House it will be a disgraceful day for the United States. 

And Democrats colluded with Matt Gaetz to put him in power.

Job well done!

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
3.2.1  George  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2    9 months ago
And Democrats colluded with Matt Gaetz to put him in power.

They are the masters of lacking the intelligence or foresight to understand the consequences of their actions.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.2.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  George @3.2.1    9 months ago
They are the masters of lacking the intelligence or foresight to understand the consequences of their actions.

Just like they are shocked to learn that taking in thousands of illegal aliens and offering them sanctuary  costs money.  

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.2.3  devangelical  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2    9 months ago

oh yeah, the dysfunction within the republican party's civil war is entirely the fault of democrats...

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
3.2.4  author  Kavika   replied to  devangelical @3.2.3    9 months ago

You know they are following the Trump narrative, blame someone else for your own stupid mistakes. 

You have to wonder who they are blaming for  Steve Scalise's loss, I bet it will be Nancy Pelosi and if Jimmy gets defeated today it will be Dog's fault.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.2.5  devangelical  replied to  Kavika @3.2.4    9 months ago

meh, you really can't expect trumpsters to be able to function in our form of gov't...

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
3.2.6  al Jizzerror  replied to  devangelical @3.2.3    9 months ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Michael C.
Freshman Expert
3.2.7  Michael C.  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2    9 months ago
And Democrats colluded with Matt Gaetz to put him in power. Job well done!

Good point!

Matt Gaetz has sooooooo much power now and its all due to the Democrats!

(Who knew?)

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
3.2.8  Krishna  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2    9 months ago
And Democrats colluded with Matt Gaetz to put him in power.

OMG-- I didn't know that! That's terrible!

Could you explain how they did it?

(If you can't-- could you at least provide a link to back it up?)

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
4  Trout Giggles    9 months ago

I want Dog! And I want Cat for the position next to House Speaker!

800

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
4.1  author  Kavika   replied to  Trout Giggles @4    9 months ago

I'm with you, Trout.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.2  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @4    9 months ago

cat looks a lot more trustworthy than maga moron jordan...

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
4.2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  devangelical @4.2    9 months ago

She is

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
4.2.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  devangelical @4.2    9 months ago

And she's a Republican. All cats are Republicans...or Libertarians. Change my mind

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.2.3  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @4.2.2    9 months ago

felines are autocats...

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
4.2.4  GregTx  replied to  devangelical @4.2.3    9 months ago

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5  TᵢG    9 months ago

Well here we go:   Hakeem Jeffries vs. Jim Jordan for Speaker.

Too bad our partisan-entrenched Congress cannot work together.  The GOP has nobody to offer (best they have is Jordan???) so the sensible path forward is with Jeffries.   But ... no ... partisanship creates irrational behavior yet again.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
5.1  evilone  replied to  TᵢG @5    9 months ago

Looks like Jordan is screwed on the first vote already.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  evilone @5.1    9 months ago

Yes.   The GOP is not in lockstep.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.2  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.1    9 months ago

I'll skip the obvious joke ...

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
5.1.3  evilone  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.1    9 months ago

I would laugh for days if 4 moderate Republicans switched parties. It's not going to happen, but it would be funny.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.4  devangelical  replied to  evilone @5.1.3    9 months ago

there would be a maga stampede to vacate the chair...

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
5.1.5  evilone  replied to  devangelical @5.1.4    9 months ago

Yes, but it would be funny watching them do it. The Dem would need 6 for a majority. The Republicans still have 20 hold outs.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.6  devangelical  replied to  evilone @5.1.5    9 months ago

if I could remove all logic, reason, and sense of patriotism from my brain, I could make a prediction. whatever happens after this debacle, you know the rules to vacate the chair will change. they'll pull that ladder up behind them...

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
5.1.7  evilone  replied to  devangelical @5.1.6    9 months ago
whatever happens after this debacle, you know the rules to vacate the chair will change. they'll pull that ladder up behind them...

Of course. The promise to get the gavel was baffling. I said he wouldn't last the year, though he did last longer than I thought he would.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
5.2  author  Kavika   replied to  TᵢG @5    9 months ago

512

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.2.1  devangelical  replied to  Kavika @5.2    9 months ago

not me. more graphic violence please...

 
 
 
Michael C.
Freshman Expert
5.3  Michael C.  replied to  TᵢG @5    9 months ago

As mentioned I watched most it. 

I knew he wouldn't win, but for most of it Jeffries vote was either equal to, or above the total for Jordan! (And of course that's in a Republican majority House). Considered how this keeps playing out I wonder: can Republicans be that stupid-- they  can't even elect a speaker when they have a majority.

Actually I don't think is just stupidity. It must be something else....

(But-- what is it?)

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.3.1  TᵢG  replied to  Michael C. @5.3    9 months ago
But-- what is it?

Dysfunction based on a radical minority of Trump sycophants coupled with a razor thin majority (due to Trump).

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
5.3.2  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Michael C. @5.3    9 months ago

If there is enough pressure to get the government operating again, especially in light of both domestic and international reasons, is it possible that enough Republicans might get McCarthy to take the job again, hoping that there could be enough Democratic support to elect him.  However, the Democrats might just be happy to allow the Republicans to make themselves so inept and useless that next year they will find themselves totally decimated.  But then, I guess that assumes that most American voters have a brain in their heads. 

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
5.3.3  evilone  replied to  Michael C. @5.3    9 months ago
ctually I don't think is just stupidity. It must be something else.... (But-- what is it?)

Anger. There are enough members in the conference that fundamentally disagree on how to govern. There are the populists like Jordan and hard right wingers like Scalise and moderate members like those in the Governance Caucus. As TiG says, arguments between those groups breads dysfunction when they don't have enough members to push one agenda over another. 

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
5.3.4  evilone  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5.3.2    9 months ago
If there is enough pressure to get the government operating again, especially in light of both domestic and international reasons, is it possible that enough Republicans might get McCarthy to take the job again, hoping that there could be enough Democratic support to elect him. 

No. The Dems don't like McCarthy at all. More likely if this doesn't resolve today some in the House may try to empower the Speaker Pro Tem to call legislation, but some feel that would also be unconstitutional so I'm not sure that would even fly. It might, but it would be extraordinary. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6  TᵢG    9 months ago

Jeffries:  212,   Jordan:  200,  Others:  20,  Not Vote:  1

What a mess.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
6.1  evilone  replied to  TᵢG @6    9 months ago

The Dems all voted for Jeffries. The 20 others were Republicans.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  evilone @6.1    9 months ago

Yup

 
 
 
Michael C.
Freshman Expert
6.2  Michael C.  replied to  TᵢG @6    9 months ago

Most commentators were surprised at the 20-- it was much, much higher than predicted.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
7  author  Kavika     9 months ago

The next speaker of the house and a fine example of bi-partisanship. 

Hail to the Speaker: Level-headed, with all four paws on the ground. A vast improvement over the Kevin, Steve and Jimmy.

K512

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
7.1  devangelical  replied to  Kavika @7    9 months ago

meh, at least the knuckle dragger faction of the GOP didn't nominate trump. the current ass-kissing contest is confusing republicans.

 
 
 
Michael C.
Freshman Expert
7.2  Michael C.  replied to  Kavika @7    9 months ago

That Dog has my vote. Now all they need is a bird-- maybe a Canary or Parakeet?

 
 
 
Michael C.
Freshman Expert
7.2.1  Michael C.  replied to  Michael C. @7.2    9 months ago
That Dog has my vote. Now all they need is a bird-- maybe a Canary or Parakeet?

That way we can have both a woofer and a tweeter.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
7.2.2  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Michael C. @7.2    9 months ago

American voters have in fact voted dogs and goats into official governing positions, so your suggestion isn't as far-fetched as it appears. 

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
8  evilone    9 months ago

I've heard rumors that if there is another vote today it could be worse than this last one. 

EDIT: CSPAN is reporting another vote will happen today.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
8.1  author  Kavika   replied to  evilone @8    9 months ago

Another vote is a waste of time, DOG is the new house speaker and as his first comment to congress he has promised that Jewish Space Lasers will be conficated and confined to the Dog House.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
8.1.1  evilone  replied to  Kavika @8.1    9 months ago

And then he'll growl and pee on Rep Santo's leg...

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
8.1.2  afrayedknot  replied to  Kavika @8.1    9 months ago

“…confined to the Dog House.”

…and when the eventual ‘speaker’ yells ‘Heel’…they’ll all assume the position, thinking that was actually their name. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
8.1.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  evilone @8.1.1    9 months ago

I'd rather Dog take a chunk out of his leg....

 
 
 
Michael C.
Freshman Expert
8.1.4  Michael C.  replied to  evilone @8.1.1    9 months ago
And then he'll growl and pee on Rep Santo's leg.

Or...maybe he'll start humping Santos leg!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9  TᵢG    9 months ago

The Ds need 5 Rs to cross the aisle and Jeffries will be elected Speaker.

The Rs need 17 to move to Jordan.

The math favors Jeffries, but the politics makes that a nearly impossible achievement.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
9.1  author  Kavika   replied to  TᵢG @9    9 months ago
The math favors Jeffries, but the politics makes that a nearly impossible achievement.

Sadly, that is probably true, T,G.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
9.2  evilone  replied to  TᵢG @9    9 months ago
The math favors Jeffries, but the politics makes that a nearly impossible achievement.

I don't think Jeffries could actually be Speaker, but these aren't normal times so as far as I can tell anything is possible if this drags on much further. None of this is going unnoticed by voters though. There will be repercussions in some of districts up for re-election.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
9.2.1  devangelical  replied to  evilone @9.2    9 months ago
There will be repercussions in some of districts up for re-election.

those are the people that democrats should be offering a deal. maga scum will primary them anyway....

 
 
 
Michael C.
Freshman Expert
9.2.2  Michael C.  replied to  evilone @9.2    9 months ago
None of this is going unnoticed by voters though. There will be repercussions in some of districts up for re-election.

At first I viewed all this nonsense in a negative light-- its not good for the country.

But there is a possible benefit from the idiocy of some of these Republicans-- they may lose the next election by a really wide margin.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
9.2.3  devangelical  replied to  Michael C. @9.2.2    9 months ago
the idiocy of some of these Republicans-- they may lose the next election by a really wide margin

they've got too much ground to make up with the voters, they'll be in full campaign mode after the holidays, and they'll be forced to defend the leader of the party's courtroom theatrics at every campaign stop.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
9.2.4  evilone  replied to  devangelical @9.2.1    9 months ago
those are the people that democrats should be offering a deal.

For sure those are those 'informal' back room talks we've been hearing about.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
9.2.5  evilone  replied to  Michael C. @9.2.2    9 months ago
At first I viewed all this nonsense in a negative light-- its not good for the country.

I agree. This is the part of politics that pisses me off. 

But there is a possible benefit from the idiocy of some of these Republicans-- they may lose the next election by a really wide margin.

It's more than possible. We'll see. It will also be interesting to see where Republicans spend their money next year and who get's primaried too.

 
 
 
Michael C.
Freshman Expert
9.3  Michael C.  replied to  TᵢG @9    9 months ago

It wouldn't happen, but wouldn't it be great if the Republican controlled House would elect Jeffries as Speaker?

(The only thing better than that would be for the Santos to win the Republican presidential primary!)

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.3.1  TᵢG  replied to  Michael C. @9.3    9 months ago
The only thing better than that would be for the Santos to win the Republican presidential primary!

No.  Santos should be in jail.

I think Jeffries is probably the best (within reach) choice the House has for Speaker right now.

 
 
 
Michael C.
Freshman Expert
9.3.2  Michael C.  replied to  TᵢG @9.3.1    9 months ago

No.  Santos should be in jail.

Actually I totally agree. I was just joking (which I'm beginning to realize is not a good idea here. I've been gone from NT for a fairly long time, but I am slowly re-learning what's acceptable and what isn't.)

I think Jeffries is probably the best (within reach) choice the House has for Speaker right now.

I agree. Except for the part about it being in reach. (I just can't seeing him winning in a Republican controlled House (well, unless the Republicans keep acting like fools, keep attacking each other in which case Jeffries could win! 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.3.3  TᵢG  replied to  Michael C. @9.3.2    9 months ago

Jeffries is possible given it takes only 5 to cross the aisle.   If the shit keeps hitting the fan, we could see a historic move like that.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
9.3.4  al Jizzerror  replied to  Michael C. @9.3    9 months ago
The only thing better than that would be for the Santos to win the Republican presidential primary!

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

Santos can be his own "Worst Lady".

512

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
9.3.5  evilone  replied to  TᵢG @9.3.1    9 months ago
I think Jeffries is probably the best (within reach) choice the House has for Speaker right now.

David Joyce is the leader of the Republican moderate Governance Caucus and has backing within both parties, just not with Republican Leadership. It just hasn't been in the front page news but I've heard some talk around the edges.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
9.3.6  evilone  replied to  evilone @9.3.5    9 months ago

I'm also hearing more this morning of McHenry as Speaker. 

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
9.3.7  George  replied to  evilone @9.3.6    9 months ago

Just give everyone a Bingo card and pull the little balls from the cage, who ever gets Bingo first is the new speaker. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.3.8  TᵢG  replied to  George @9.3.7    9 months ago

It might approach that.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
9.3.9  George  replied to  TᵢG @9.3.8    9 months ago

It may increase the odds of getting a competent speaker than letting them decide.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
10  JBB    9 months ago

No wonder the once Grand Old Party of Abraham Lincoln is now known merely as "the gop"? They actually lowered their own case...

 
 
 
Michael C.
Freshman Expert
10.1  Michael C.  replied to  JBB @10    9 months ago
They actually lowered their own case...

For some strange reason its almost like they want to lose....

 
 
 
Michael C.
Freshman Expert
10.1.1  Michael C.  replied to  Michael C. @10.1    9 months ago
For some strange reason its almost like they want to lose.... jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

One of my favourite quotes (which I've posted before):

Suppose I was an idiot. And suppose I was a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.

-Samuel Langhorne Clemens

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
11  JohnRussell    9 months ago

Trump called Jim Jordan "a fantastic young man" today. 

Jim Jordan is 59 years old. 

 
 
 
Michael C.
Freshman Expert
11.1  Michael C.  replied to  JohnRussell @11    9 months ago
Trump called Jim Jordan "a fantastic young man" today.  Jim Jordan is 59 years old. 

Some of trump's recent comment are worse than usual. I wonder if he's getting senile? Or maybe its just the stress of so many indictments...and maybe he's finally started to realize he may not be able to weasel his way out like he used to do.?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
11.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @11    9 months ago

So Jordan is 18 years younger.  Is 59 the new 45?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
12  al Jizzerror    9 months ago

gym-jordan-has.jpg

I don't think Jordan has ever even supported any decent legislation.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
13  al Jizzerror    9 months ago

How many ballots will it take for Jordan to realize that...

they-still-wont.jpg

gym-jordan-is.jpg

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
14  TᵢG    9 months ago

Raskin floats Liz Cheney, Mitt Romney, Angus King as consensus speaker options

Yes, Cheney, Romney, and King are excellent choices for Speaker.   But the dysfunctional GOP has moved away from the GOP of old.

 
 
 
Michael C.
Freshman Expert
14.1  Michael C.  replied to  TᵢG @14    9 months ago

Both Cheney & Romney are not Trump supporters, So IMO very few Republicans would vote for them. Angus King is an Independent (unless he became a Democrat?) He's a moderate (whatever that means!) but I think he's much too progressive for most Republicans (?)

 
 
 
Michael C.
Freshman Expert
14.1.1  Michael C.  replied to  Michael C. @14.1    9 months ago

So IMO very few Republicans would vote for them.

Actually now that I think about it one of them might make it-- each of them would get some Democratic votes and perhaps lose some Democratic votes-- and each of them would probably get some Republican votes and lose some Republican votes.

But that might get one of them to win!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
14.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Michael C. @14.1    9 months ago
Both Cheney & Romney are not Trump supporters, So IMO very few Republicans would vote for them.

Indeed, the root of the dysfunction within the GOP.

 
 
 
Michael C.
Freshman Expert
14.2  Michael C.  replied to  TᵢG @14    9 months ago
But the dysfunctional GOP has moved away from the GOP of old.

True. But while they are a minority in the current  gooop-- I mean Gop!-- there are few moderate Republicans.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
14.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  Michael C. @14.2    9 months ago

Yeah, but I doubt there are enough left to vote for Cheney, Romney, King or anyone else (e.g. Hutchinson) who could taken on the role as a competent adult seeking to do what is best for the nation.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
15  al Jizzerror    9 months ago

do-you-miss-7ce6ce1475.jpg

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
15.1  evilone  replied to  al Jizzerror @15    9 months ago

No.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
15.2  George  replied to  al Jizzerror @15    9 months ago

The only Speaker in modern history to lose the house twice? i would think democrats would be happy the loser is gone.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
16  evilone    9 months ago

It looks a bit tense in the House this morning...

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
16.1  author  Kavika   replied to  evilone @16    9 months ago

I'm sure it will get more tense as the day wears on.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
16.1.1  evilone  replied to  Kavika @16.1    9 months ago

The day, the week... lol!

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
16.1.2  evilone  replied to  evilone @16.1.1    9 months ago

I can do without all the Dems cheering during that speech.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
17  Gsquared    9 months ago

Tom Cole called Jim Jordan "an honorable man".  Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!

Liar.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
18  Hal A. Lujah    9 months ago

We pay federal taxes to fund a government of elected Republican buffoons who can’t understand that if an internal Jordan vs. Scalise competition results in Scalise, and he ultimately cannot close the deal, then running Jordan is an exercise in futility.  Your tax dollars at work.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
18.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @18    9 months ago

A minute ago?  Playing games?

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
18.1.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Vic Eldred @18.1    9 months ago

Any other random words you’d like to string together?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
18.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @18.1.1    9 months ago

Only two, but I can't say them.

You have all done a nice job here.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
19  JBB    9 months ago

Five sensible Republicans could end this by voting for Jeffries... 

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
19.1  George  replied to  JBB @19    9 months ago

Five sensible democrats could end this by voting for the party that has the majority in the house.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
19.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  George @19.1    9 months ago

Jeffries is substantially better for the nation than Jordan.   We need to rid Congress of Trump sycophants.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
19.1.2  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  George @19.1    9 months ago

For Jordan?!  ROFL.  You think it’s sensible for some democrats to vote FOR an election denying QAnon nut job?!

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
19.1.3  George  replied to  TᵢG @19.1.1    9 months ago

Hakim is a partisan hack, like members of both sides, they voted to create this Chaos, The democrats should not get rewarded for causing this. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
19.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  George @19.1.3    9 months ago

As far as I am concerned, any member of Congress who supports Trump, given all that Trump has done, is too irresponsible, irrational and unpatriotic to hold office.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
19.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  George @19.1.3    9 months ago
Hakim is a partisan hack, like members of both sides, they voted to create this Chaos, The democrats should not get rewarded for causing this. 

Exactly right.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
19.1.6  George  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @19.1.2    9 months ago

I think the democrats helped cause this and are not going to get rewarded for it. Democrats are the masters of sticking their heads up their asses and then complaining it is dark.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
19.1.7  George  replied to  TᵢG @19.1.4    9 months ago

Of course you do, but any congress member who supports Palestine's attempted genocide of Israel should get to stay. 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
19.1.8  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  George @19.1.3    9 months ago

A partisan hack that received more votes than the best Republicans have to offer in a Republican majority House.  jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
19.1.9  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  George @19.1.6    9 months ago

Helped?  How?  By not changing their intentions to deny two openly hostile imbeciles the opportunity to be second in line for the presidency?  Maybe five should do that and recite “THANK YOU SIR MAY I HAVE ANOTHER” after their vote.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
19.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @19.1.8    9 months ago
A partisan hack that received more votes than the best Republicans have to offer in a Republican majority House.

So Democrats are so in lockstep every single one votes the party line.

Quite a moment to be proud of.........

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
19.1.11  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Texan1211 @19.1.10    9 months ago

Your jealousy is obvious.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
19.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @19.1.11    9 months ago
Your jealousy is obvious.

Thanks for the daily reminder Reagan was and continues to be correct.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
19.1.13  George  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @19.1.8    9 months ago

You see that a lot with people who are mentally challenged, when one starts to laugh they all laugh without understanding why, democrats are like that. 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
19.1.14  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  George @19.1.13    9 months ago

When it comes to QAnon election denying nutjobs every single democrat is crystal clear in their understanding.  

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
19.1.15  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Texan1211 @19.1.12    9 months ago

Reagan was and continues to be correct

Apparently you have forgotten that today’s conservatives would find Reagan to be a far left radical.

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.

- Ronald Reagan

This is why Democrats are so tightly united against the highly fractured farce that the right has become.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
19.1.16  Sean Treacy  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @19.1.14    9 months ago

Democrats love election denying nut jobs. They put them on the j6 committee.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
19.1.17  Texan1211  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @19.1.15    9 months ago
Apparently you have forgotten that today’s conservatives would find Reagan to be a far left radical.

Funny thing there--his words ring as true today as they did he first said them. There is absolutely no need for you to continue to prove him right, however.

But hey--nice deflection!

Better than most, anyway!

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
19.1.18  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @19.1.4    9 months ago
As far as I am concerned, any member of Congress who supports Trump, given all that Trump has done, is too irresponsible, irrational and unpatriotic to hold office.

Yep, and anyone that voted for Trump, given all that Trump has done, is too irresponsible, irrational and unpatriotic to vote. S/

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
19.1.19  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @19.1.17    9 months ago
But hey--nice deflection!

Pot kettle.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
19.1.20  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @19.1.19    9 months ago

Okay, I'll bite.

What have you imagined I am deflecting from?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
19.1.21  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @19.1.18    9 months ago
Yep, and anyone that voted for Trump,

No, that is not what I wrote and have never written.   I do not blame people for voting for Trump in 2016 (not so generous with 2020).   I am writing about the 2024 vote.

I write about those who would vote for Trump NOW given all that we know.    In particular, those who would vote for a traitor who attempted to steal a US presidential election (the only time in our history) as sitting PotUS, abusing his influence and using coercion, fraud, lies, suborning his own V.P. to commit an unconstitutional act, and inciting his supporters.

And in my prior comment I was talking about members of Congress.

 
 
 
Michael C.
Freshman Expert
19.1.22  Michael C.  replied to  George @19.1    9 months ago
Five sensible democrats could end this by voting for the party that has the majority in the house.

This is not about a vote for a party-- its about voting for an individual.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
19.1.23  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Michael C. @19.1.22    9 months ago

Yes, Krishna, but in America these days divisive partisan politics rules the day.  If it did not, I would think that Liz Cheney would make a perfect Speaker of the House, and has already proven her bipartisanship, but can she do that if she is not an elected member of Congress?  I guess the problem is there are still too many Trump sheep who are lawmakers.

 
 
 
Michael C.
Freshman Expert
19.1.24  Michael C.  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @19.1.23    9 months ago
but can she do that if she is not an elected member of Congress? 

O could be wrong but I believe I've read that aa Speaker can be elected who is not even a member of the House (?).

However I don't think would have a chance of being elected-- many Republicans hate her because she is too hones and many Democrats wouldn't like her because she is too conservative!!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
19.1.25  TᵢG  replied to  Michael C. @19.1.24    9 months ago
I believe I've read that aa Speaker can be elected who is not even a member of the House (?).

True

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
19.1.26  Krishna  replied to  Texan1211 @19.1.12    9 months ago
Reagan was and continues to be correct.

Yes but Reagan only has one more year in office till Sanctimonious is elected by a landslide.

And anyway-- do bears shit in the woods?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
19.2  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @19    9 months ago
Five sensible Republicans could end this by voting for Jeffries... 

We couldn't find that many sensible Democrats, alas.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
19.2.1  Krishna  replied to  Texan1211 @19.2    9 months ago
We couldn't find that many sensible Democrats,

Why are you looking for Democrats?
Is it colder in the winter or in the mountains?

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
19.3  Right Down the Center  replied to  JBB @19    9 months ago
Five sensible Republicans could end this by voting for Jeffries... 

Five sensible Democrats could have voted for McCarthy and we would not be where we are now.  Seems maybe it was more important for them to point and say how dysfunctional the Republicans are instead of keeping the guy that just went across the aisle to keep the government running.  If Jordon ends up as the guy they should all be kicking themselves in the ass, they could have helped prevent this

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
19.3.1  Snuffy  replied to  Right Down the Center @19.3    9 months ago

Of course.  Party politics is so much more important to them than actually governing the country for The People.

Considering how much money it takes these days to run for office, we have the worst government money can buy.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
19.3.2  Krishna  replied to  Right Down the Center @19.3    9 months ago
If Jordon ends up as the guy

But, but, but...Jordan is the guy!

They had yet another vote-- behind closed doors-- and Jordan won! (He was voted biggest fool in the Republocratic Party!

So yes-- you are correct. JORDAN IS "THE GUY'!  jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
20  evilone    9 months ago

There's the second vote this week....

original

Jeffries will NOT be Speaker in a Republican majority House. It would be career suicide for any Republican to vote for him and the Democrats know that. The idea is to hold out for a moderate Republican option the Republicans get behind. Then some Dems may cross isle to get it done. 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
20.1  author  Kavika   replied to  evilone @20    9 months ago

It's time to elect DOG who is ready willing and far more able than Jim Jordan.

512

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
20.1.1  evilone  replied to  Kavika @20.1    9 months ago

Will Dog call for an impeachment vote? Hahahaha!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
20.1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  evilone @20.1.1    9 months ago

Cat backs him up

She's a troublemaker

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
20.1.3  evilone  replied to  Trout Giggles @20.1.2    9 months ago

Dog & Cat should run for President and VP.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
20.1.4  author  Kavika   replied to  evilone @20.1.3    9 months ago

Don't give them ideas. LOL 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
21  JohnRussell    9 months ago

There are some Republicans that would be perfectly acceptable traditional Republican leaders.  None of them wants this job, because they know the far right loons will sabotage them. Hence we are left with Jim Jordan taking bullets for the team. I think they actually should make Trump speaker just for the sheer train wreck entertainment value. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
21.1  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @21    9 months ago
I think they actually should make Trump speaker just for the sheer train wreck entertainment value. 

I am sure this was tongue-in-cheek, but I want to just note that Trump should never be given access to any power of any kind.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
22  JohnRussell    9 months ago

The idea that the Democrats are responsible (because they dont want a traitor 2nd in line to the presidency) is one of the craziest things Ive heard in a while. 

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
23  evilone    9 months ago

I found this article I thought interesting... 

The rise in McHenry’s chances to 34% put them above Jordan’s, which had dropped to 12.5% on Wednesday afternoon. 
 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
23.1  author  Kavika   replied to  evilone @23    9 months ago

That's interesting.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
23.2  Snuffy  replied to  evilone @23    9 months ago

Does McHenry even want to be the Speaker?  I know he's publicly stated he doesn't want the position but who really knows what is said in those back rooms.  

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
23.2.1  evilone  replied to  Snuffy @23.2    9 months ago

He does say no, but there are a lot of new articles online right now talking about expanding McHenry's power as Pro Tem until a Speaker is picked OR the current government funding is expired on Nov 17th. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
23.2.2  Snuffy  replied to  evilone @23.2.1    9 months ago

Yeah, I saw those and I think it would be a good idea so that the House could start doing the business of the country.  And McHenry would still just be temporary in that position.  I like that he's a fiscal conservative yet is open to bipartisanship actions.  

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
24  Snuffy    9 months ago

Did you catch Adam Schiff trying to make hay from this?  He was so quick to try to point out just how bad it would be if Jordan was made the Speaker..  What a moron, saying the Speaker would preside over the counting of electoral votes.  How quickly, when trying to score points, they forget simple facts.

In the middle of Congress voting on whether Jordan would be the new speaker — following the ouster of Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., from the role — Schiff warned that Jordan would be in a prominent position to sway next year’s presidential election if he received the gavel.

Schiff posted to X on Tuesday, "Today, Republicans may make Jim Jordan the Speaker. Jordan would preside over the counting of electoral votes in the next election. After he was deeply involved in trying to overturn the last one."

Adam Schiff fact-checked on social media after claiming House speaker counts presidential electoral votes | Fox News

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
24.1  evilone  replied to  Snuffy @24    9 months ago

Yeah, that's dumb. Though he may be thinking since Jordan supported the 'fake elector' idea he could, as Speaker, have an impact on the proceedings if tried again. It's still sounds dumb. Schiff is just trying to raise money from partisans as they seem to always want to do. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
25  Jeremy Retired in NC    9 months ago

There is a plus side to this.  There will be no unnecessary spending (like sending billions to Ukraine) or any declarations of war.  That must have the democrats fuming.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
25.1  author  Kavika   replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @25    9 months ago
There is a plus side to this.  There will be no unnecessary spending (like sending billions to Ukraine) or any declarations of war.  That must have the democrats fuming.

It dosn't have me fuming at all. We are also sending billions to Israel in case you hadn't noticed.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
25.1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Kavika @25.1    9 months ago
It dosn't have me fuming at all.

I don't recall mentioned you.  So, what's your point?

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
25.1.2  author  Kavika   replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @25.1.1    9 months ago
I don't recall mentioned you.  So, what's your point?

You must have a very short memory your comment was:

That must have the democrats fuming.

Being a member of the Democratic party, that would include me. It's fairly simple but if you don't have a legitimate response I guess trying to blind people with bullshit is go-to response for you. 

That's the point, Jeremy.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
25.1.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Kavika @25.1.2    9 months ago

You went though all that to say....nothing.    

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
25.1.4  author  Kavika   replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @25.1.3    9 months ago
You went though all that to say....nothing. 

Oh, I did point out that you cannot accept what you wrote and try to BS your way around it. 

That is evident to anyone who can read but if you insist on being incorrigible that is up to you.

 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
25.1.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Kavika @25.1.4    9 months ago
I did point out that you cannot accept what you wrote and try to BS your way around it. 

Maybe in your head.  

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
25.1.6  author  Kavika   replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @25.1.5    9 months ago
Maybe in your head.  

You should quit digging when you're in a deep hole, as I stated it's there for everyone to see. Perhaps you should look up the meaning of incorrigible. 

Cheers

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
25.2  al Jizzerror  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @25    9 months ago
declarations of war. 

They last time Congress declared war was WWII.

Do you "blame" the Democrats for that?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
25.2.1  devangelical  replied to  al Jizzerror @25.2    9 months ago

certainly he does, it totally alienated the neo-nazi segment of the GOP for decades...

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
25.2.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  devangelical @25.2.1    9 months ago
certainly he does

So you're a mind reader now.  Quick, what am I thinking now! 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
25.2.3  devangelical  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @25.2.2    9 months ago

... maga roulette, you leave 1 chamber empty, but you have to pull the trigger twice to win...

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
25.2.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  devangelical @25.2.3    9 months ago

Yeah, you fucked that up too.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
25.2.5  Krishna  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @25.2.2    9 months ago
Quick, what am I thinking now! 

You are not thinking.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
26  evilone    9 months ago

Jordan remains in the race for Speaker this morning while his opposition within the conference are saying he'll continue to lose votes until he drops out.

"He started out with  20 (votes opposed ). He's  now down 22 . I think he'll be down to 25, 26 if he goes to the floor again," [Ken] Buck said.

I haven't heard when the next vote will take place yet, but one is expected today.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
26.1  Snuffy  replied to  evilone @26    9 months ago

Jordan has dropped out (for now) and will back McHenry for an expansion of powers to the Speaker pro Tem until January.  I think this is a good move as it was expected that Jordan would continue to lose votes.

House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan will cancel the third vote to elect a speaker in the House of Representatives, and will back a move to empower House Speaker Pro Tempore Patrick McHenry until January, Fox News Digital has confirmed.

Jordan lost support on the second ballot yesterday -- scoring only 199 votes yesterday after getting only 200 in the first ballot.

He needed 217 to become speaker, and could afford few Republican defections. Fox News was told he was expected to lose further votes in a ballot on Thursday.

Jordan cancels third speaker's vote, will back McHenry until January | Live Updates from Fox News Digital

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
26.1.1  evilone  replied to  Snuffy @26.1    9 months ago

Interesting. Now the question is - is the plan to empower McHenry Constitutionally legal? If so, I might be the best way forward.

EDIT: With a vote of the House they can formally make him Speaker Pro Tempore.

Here are the powers. copy/paste didn't work -

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
26.1.2  evilone  replied to  evilone @26.1.1    9 months ago

There isn't much McHenry can do and any expansion of these powers moves us into legally gray areas - 

functions that are within the scope of authority of a Speaker pro

  tempore are calling the House to order, making various announcements,

  answering parliamentary inquiries, putting the question, counting for

  a quorum, ruling on points of order, and designating another Speaker

  pro tempore. Deschler Ch 6 Sec. Sec. 9, 10. When the Office of Speaker

  is vacant, the Member acting as Speaker pro tempore under rule I

  section 8(b) may exercise such authorities of the Office as may be

  necessary and appropriate pending the election of a Speaker or Speaker

  pro tempore.

      The authority of a Speaker pro tempore to exercise certain powers

  depends on whether he is designated, designated and approved, or

  elected. The powers of a designated Speaker pro tempore, compared with

  those of an elected Speaker pro tempore, are relatively limited.

  Deschler Ch 6 Sec. Sec. 10, 14.

      Absent unanimous consent or specific House approval, a designated

  Speaker pro tempore may not:

 

     Administer the oath of office to a Member-elect. Deschler Ch 6

         Sec. 12.8.

     Announce appointments made by the Speaker pursuant to law. 96-

         1, Jan. 31, 1979, p 1511.

     Appoint conferees or make appointments of additional

         conferees. Deschler Ch 6 Sec. Sec. 12.9, 12.10.

     Appoint Members to attend a funeral. Deschler Ch 6 Sec. 12.14.

     Spread upon the Journal a veto message from the President.

         Deschler Ch 6 Sec. 12.11.

 

      By contrast, an elected Speaker pro tempore may, for example,

  appoint conferees, administer the oath of office to a Member-elect,

  and preside at a joint session of Congress. Deschler Ch 6

  Sec. Sec. 12.8, 14, 14.8.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
26.1.3  Snuffy  replied to  evilone @26.1.1    9 months ago

Yep, and that is a loaded question.  

Former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who was ousted on Oct. 3, handpicked McHenry for the role of speaker pro tem, created after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, to ensure continuity of government. But this is the first time since the House has used a speaker pro tem in this way.

A U.S. House procedure expert said during an interview with States Newsroom on Thursday that while the role of speaker pro tem was created following the 2001 attacks, it was done so against the constitutional backdrop that the House elects its speakers.

“But it uses those broad terms of ‘necessary and appropriate’ to give the flexibility to that person in the event of an unforeseeable catastrophic event,” said the expert, who spoke on background with States Newsroom to discuss the authorities of the speaker pro tem.

Before the role of speaker pro tem was created, the House Clerk would have stepped into the role in the event of a vacancy, but the expert said “that was something that was not viewed favorably” by the task force that looked at continuity of Congress issues following 9/11.

The   rule   — which says the speaker pro tem “may exercise such authorities of the Office of the Speaker as may be necessary and appropriate to that end” — is “purposely vague,” the expert said.

“So it gives a little flexibility, but within that tight window of we must do the election, the election is paramount,” the expert said. “What you must remember is that the constitutional imperative is that the House chooses its speaker, not the former speaker chooses its speaker.”

There’s still no speaker of the U.S. House. Could Patrick McHenry be the solution? - Kentucky Lantern

Of course with the other side of that question, who would bring forth a court case for / against this?  With the backdrop of the war in Ukraine and in Israel, and the simple issue that the current budget CR expires in less than 30 days, do the people against this sort of action want to tie up the issue with court challenges and further delay any action that the government can take that requires Congressional funding/approval?

I know there are plenty of idiots in Congress, but would they truly be willing to put their political future on the line for something like this?  I can see any challenges to this backfiring on them come election time as it would definitely be used by their opponents.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
26.1.4  evilone  replied to  Snuffy @26.1.3    9 months ago
Of course with the other side of that question, who would bring forth a court case for / against this? 

It seems to have broad support, but it only takes one Congressional monkey to throw a wrench. The news involving the harassment of Jordan hold outs makes me think it's possible any one of those people could raise the question. I guess we'll see if they plan to do this today or tomorrow. 

I know there are plenty of idiots in Congress, but would they truly be willing to put their political future on the line for something like this?  I can see any challenges to this backfiring on them come election time as it would definitely be used by their opponents.

When Gaetz started this whole clusterfuck he said he didn't care if it cost him his seat. Remember some of the populist were sent in to shut down all spending. The issues in Israel do change that paradigm so I don't know how to answer that question. I'm always amazed at the amount of stupid we see every day from people who think they are smarter than everyone else. 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
26.1.5  author  Kavika   replied to  evilone @26.1.4    9 months ago

Gaetz said he plans on running for governor of Florida since DeSantis will be termed out.

Truth or BS who knows his father said he will be running for the state senate he served some years in the state legislature previously.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
26.1.6  evilone  replied to  Kavika @26.1.5    9 months ago

Either way he still has access to underage party girls and coke.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
26.1.7  evilone  replied to  Snuffy @26.1.3    9 months ago

Well this idea didn't last long - McHenry is too moderate for the Jim Jordan backers and they won't capitulate. During a conference meeting today - 

Some members waived pocket-size copies of the U.S. Constitution and suggested the plan violated the country’s founding principles.
 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
26.1.8  al Jizzerror  replied to  evilone @26.1.6    9 months ago
he still has access to underage party girls

it-was-a-8bb6d32e40.jpg

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
27  author  Kavika     9 months ago

House Republican: Jim Jordan team 'harassing our spouses'

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
27.1  evilone  replied to  Kavika @27    9 months ago

I've read a number of articles on the harassment. Anonymously calls and texts to office staff and family members is unforgivable. 

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
27.1.1  author  Kavika   replied to  evilone @27.1    9 months ago
Anonymously calls and texts to office staff and family members is unforgivable. 

Yes, they are but in today's political climate not unexpected.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
27.1.2  devangelical  replied to  Kavika @27.1.1    9 months ago

that's all part of the "normal political discourse" for republicans...

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
27.1.3  Hallux  replied to  Kavika @27.1.1    9 months ago
Yes, they are but in today's political climate not unexpected.

In fact they're de rigueur!

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
28  JBB    9 months ago

And now, this...

original

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
29  A. Macarthur    9 months ago

If Jim Jordan is Speaker, for however long, NOTHING THAT WILL BENEFIT a so-called "normal/average" American will be accomplished by Government. And be assured of … • Legislation to help Organized Wealth, • Political Revenge "Investigations", • Deference to Trump

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
29.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  A. Macarthur @29    9 months ago

In the meantime, I wish the American voters were intelligent enough to comprehend that the Republicans are not capable of governing America, since they are incapable of getting their own act together.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
30  author  Kavika     9 months ago

Jim Jordan Opts Out of Third Day of Public Humiliation

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
30.1  evilone  replied to  Kavika @30    9 months ago

As of this morning he was talking of another vote this afternoon, but the rumors from his party opposition say he'll lose another 4 to 10 votes if he does. What would be fantastic is having the Dems nominate and vote for a moderate Republican like McHenry or Joyce and see if that vote goes through. They would only need 5 other Republicans to pass. It wouldn't happen, but then again there are no adults in the House these days. 

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
30.2  Hallux  replied to  Kavika @30    9 months ago

I guess we will see if enough Republicans have received the adequate number of threats to congeal as one voice ... and they're still voting for Jordan. @!@ And down he goes again ... blame the Dems, blame the Dems ... blame the Dems and their sneaky commie submarine!

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
30.2.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Hallux @30.2    9 months ago

Jordan doesn't have the votes and the threats have backfired.

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
30.2.2  Hallux  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @30.2.1    9 months ago

The Gods are commie's too!

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
30.2.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Hallux @30.2.2    9 months ago

Jordon might do worse today than in the previous two votes.

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
30.2.4  Hallux  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @30.2.3    9 months ago

Maybe he should not have worn a jacket, he's hard to recognize wearing one.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
30.2.5  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Hallux @30.2.4    9 months ago

He has no skills or the proper appearance for a Representative much less the Speaker.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
30.2.6  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @30.2.3    9 months ago

Indeed he did.   25 Rs voting for someone else now.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
30.2.7  evilone  replied to  TᵢG @30.2.6    9 months ago

I didn't see the voting this morning, but just caught up now. 

512

There is already talk of another possible vote again today. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
30.2.8  TᵢG  replied to  evilone @30.2.7    9 months ago

That would be insanity, right?

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
30.2.9  evilone  replied to  TᵢG @30.2.8    9 months ago

I've long equated populism with insanity. 

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
30.2.10  Hallux  replied to  evilone @30.2.7    9 months ago

Oh well, maybe it's time for spin the bottle. Where's Boehner, he should have an empty one.

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
30.2.11  Hallux  replied to  TᵢG @30.2.8    9 months ago

Anyone who attributes that to Einstein should be taken out back and shot.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
Masters Expert
30.2.12  al Jizzerror  replied to  Hallux @30.2.4    9 months ago
Maybe he should not have worn a jacket

Gym "jacket-off"?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
30.2.13  devangelical  replied to  al Jizzerror @30.2.12    9 months ago

gee, it looks like the house doesn't want a pedophile enabling insurrectionist as speaker...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
30.2.14  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @30.2.13    9 months ago

it got even worse afterwards in the back room with a secret ballot...

oh well, so much for the republican tradition of having an ohio SOTH involved with pedophilia...

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
32  evilone    9 months ago

From WaPo

House Republicans, meeting behind closed doors, voted Friday by secret ballot for Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) to step aside as the GOP speaker nominee after a third vote on the House floor in which Jordan fell well short of a majority of the full chamber. The vote to remove Jordan was 112 to 86. The move leaves the Republican conference without a nominee more than two weeks after the ouster of Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) as speaker. House Republicans will return Monday to start the process again. Members have until Sunday to declare speaker candidacies.

Now we'll wait for Monday and see what plan F will be. By then it will be nearly 20 days without a Speaker of the House and 25 left to pass various spending bills. 

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
32.1  evilone  replied to  evilone @32    9 months ago

From USA Today: 

Multiple candidates immediately jumped into the speaker's race following Jordan's exit. They are:

  • Rep. Kevin Hern, R-Okla.
  • Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga.
  • Rep. Tom Emmer, R-Minn.
  • Rep. Jack Bergman, R-Mich.

Other candidates are still considering a speakership bid. They are:

  • Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Texas 
  • Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La.
 
 
 
bccrane
Freshman Silent
32.1.1  bccrane  replied to  evilone @32.1    9 months ago

Yep, just received and email from my Representative, Jack Bergman, and I immediately sent back a "Go for it".

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
32.1.2  evilone  replied to  bccrane @32.1.1    9 months ago
Jack Bergman

He isn't my first choice, but he's not Jordan.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
32.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  evilone @32.1    9 months ago

Per this list, every one of those seeking the speakership are either Trump supporters or they have not offered an endorsement:     

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
32.1.4  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @32.1.3    9 months ago

I saw another list where only 2 of the candidates voted to certify the results of the 2020 election.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
32.1.5  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @32.1.4    9 months ago

I met buck on a golf course before he ran for congress. nice enough guy, but then I found out he was a bible thumping attorney that owned a gun shop. talk about a 3 legged chair of a human.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
32.1.6  cjcold  replied to  evilone @32.1.2    9 months ago

The fact that you would vote for any republican... 

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
32.1.7  cjcold  replied to  devangelical @32.1.5    9 months ago

The important question is whether he cheated.

Anybody who cheats at golf is scum of the earth.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
32.1.8  devangelical  replied to  cjcold @32.1.7    9 months ago

I agree. I spent the first several years not keeping score when I played. I figured what's the point if you're shooting over 100 every round. it really pissed off my golf buddies for some reason. as I got better and when I had to play in company tournaments, I started to, but since I was never going to qualify for the PGA tour, so what...

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
32.1.9  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  devangelical @32.1.8    9 months ago

Exactly, why mess with performance metrics when participation is what’s important.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
32.1.10  Krishna  replied to  cjcold @32.1.7    9 months ago
Anybody who cheats at golf is scum of the earth.

I mentioned this once before here, but IMO its interesting so I'll repeat it.

One of my closest friend lives in Boca Raton, Florida. A short drive from Mar a Lago. She's an avid golfer-- and sometimes plays on the same golf course as Trump uses.

One day she happened to get a caddy who is Trump's caddy! They got to talking, and he confided in her that not only does Trump cheat at golf, but he's consistent-- he does so more than just about any golfer this caddy has worked for!

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
33  cjcold    9 months ago

So let's get back to more important things now.

Travis and Taylor are officially a couple!

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
33.1  Krishna  replied to  cjcold @33    9 months ago
Travis and Taylor are officially a couple!

Let's hope he can protect her as well as her regular bodyguard (he just took a leave of absence from the job as he went off to fight for his country).

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
34  devangelical    9 months ago

trump calls emmer a rino and he drops out of the speaker race... carry on with the maga shit show...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
34.1  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @34    9 months ago

the political worship of an unamerican criminal traitor by the right wing in america is truly disgusting...

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
35  author  Kavika     9 months ago

Seems we have a new speaker of the house, the perfect Republican, he is anti everything.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
35.1  TᵢG  replied to  Kavika @35    9 months ago

Except he is pro Trump.   Just perfect for the current dysfunctional GOP.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
35.1.1  author  Kavika   replied to  TᵢG @35.1    9 months ago

A perfect model for the GOP.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
35.2  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Kavika @35    9 months ago

This moron believes he has all the answers and that all the American people are excited for his far right agenda.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
35.2.1  author  Kavika   replied to  Hal A. Lujah @35.2    9 months ago

Getting rid of SS and medicare is very high on America's list. /s Him, trying to sell that to the American public is going to be interesting to say the least.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
36  Texan1211    9 months ago

Time to cue up the leftist whining about the new Speaker.

Oops, too late.

Democrats could have had someone else, but refused.

Too bad now.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
36.1  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @36    9 months ago
Too bad now.

Are you happy with Johnson as Speaker of the House?

A Young Earth Creationist (meaning that he believes the universe was created 6,000 years ago and that biological evolution is a worldwide fraud) who supports Trump and helped support his Big Lie and is basically hard core against abortion, climate science, etc.?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
36.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @36.1    9 months ago
Are you happy with Johnson as Speaker of the House?

I wasn't overly concerned with who is Speaker to begin with, recognizing how limited whatever power they have is.

I am just glad it is over.

If Democrats had wanted someone different, they could have had someone different.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
36.1.2  Krishna  replied to  TᵢG @36.1    9 months ago
A Young Earth Creationist (meaning that he believes the universe was created 6,000 years ago and that biological evolution is a worldwide fraud)

Sounds good so far. One more question-- is he a "flat earther"? If so, then I would support him! jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

/sarcasm

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
36.1.3  Krishna  replied to  Texan1211 @36.1.1    9 months ago
If Democrats had wanted someone different, they could have had someone different.

its true. because obviously Democrats are smarter than Republicans, so that even though the Republicans have a majority in the House, the Dems will still have 100% control.

How could that be?

There's only one way-- as you implied, the Dems are smarter.

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
36.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Krishna @36.1.3    9 months ago

thank you for letting me know you didn't get it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
36.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  Krishna @36.1.2    9 months ago
... is he a "flat earther"?

At this point, might as well be.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
36.1.6  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @36.1.1    9 months ago
If Democrats had wanted someone different, they could have had someone different.

This choice of Speaker is that of the majority party.   You clearly understand that party crossovers are basically political suicide and that few congresspersons have the integrity to compromise their political careers for a vote.   

The Ds wanted Jeffries.   The Rs have the majority and they pushed through Johnson.

Yet you still spin this as the fault of the Ds.   Partisan crap.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
36.1.7  George  replied to  TᵢG @36.1.6    9 months ago
few congresspersons have the integrity to compromise their political careers for a vote. 

Which is exactly why you never see anything but a party line vote from democrats. republicans aren't much better, but democrats voted in unison to side with Matt Gates, rather than show some level of integrity. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
36.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  George @36.1.7    9 months ago
... but democrats voted in unison to side with Matt Gates

They voted against McCarthy.    It was a stupid move, but portraying the Ds as being aligned (in unison with) Gates is clearly ridiculous spin.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
36.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @36.1.6    9 months ago
This choice of Speaker is that of the majority party

Yes, I am aware of how things work.

I never said it was the Democrats' fault, stop inventing  and assigning things to me that I don't say, that is intellectually dishonest.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
36.1.10  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @36.1.9    9 months ago
I never said it was the Democrats' fault, ...

You are not trying to fault the Ds with this?:

Texan @36.1.1If Democrats had wanted someone different, they could have had someone different.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
36.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @36.1.10    9 months ago

Correct, now you've got it.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
36.1.12  George  replied to  TᵢG @36.1.8    9 months ago

They absolutely could have shown some integrity and not vote in unison. They could have also honored Pelosi's pledge, they chose to ignore that also, the are as culpable as Gates and the seven republicans that voted to change speakers without a plan to replace them, And if the dems or anyone thought Jeffries was going to be speaker they are dumber than Gates is.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
36.1.13  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @36.1.11    9 months ago
Correct, now you've got it.

Then you do not understand the meaning of your own words.   You stated that the Ds had the ability to get someone different.   So how in your mind can you fail to see that you are faulting the Ds for not getting someone different? 

jrSmiley_123_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
36.1.14  TᵢG  replied to  George @36.1.12    9 months ago
They absolutely could have shown some integrity and not vote in unison.

You expect too much from the current crop in Congress.   It is all blind partisanship all the time.

Thus, bottom line, the majority party rules and when the majority party cannot keep its shit together, it is the majority party that is predominantly at fault.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
36.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @36.1.13    9 months ago

I understand what I wrote just fine. If anyone is failing, it damn sure ain't me!

I am sure if you read what I wrote without attempting to invent things that simply aren't there, you will, too.

And if not, I'm good.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
36.1.16  George  replied to  TᵢG @36.1.14    9 months ago

Gee, i seem to remember 10 republicans who voted to impeach trump, if only there were 7 democrats who had integrity we wouldn't have ended up here. So no, it's not blind partisanship all the time. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
36.1.17  Texan1211  replied to  George @36.1.16    9 months ago

say, what do you mean inserting logic like that?

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
36.1.18  George  replied to  TᵢG @36.1.14    9 months ago
it is the majority party that is predominantly at fault.

So 208 democrats vote together to throw the house into chaos, and it is primarily the republicans fault. Do you honestly think the democrat vote would have been any different no matter who the speaker was?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
36.1.19  Texan1211  replied to  George @36.1.18    9 months ago

I really don't think the point is getting through. 

Of course had Democrats not voted in total lockstep, most of this was avoidable.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
36.1.20  TᵢG  replied to  George @36.1.16    9 months ago
So no, it's not blind partisanship all the time. 

So your argument is that it is not strictly blind partisanship all the time (in a prior Congress) so my point is not valid?

How about it is blind partisanship 'almost' all of the time?

Does that changing the power of my point?:

Bottom line, the majority party rules and when the majority party cannot keep its shit together, it is the majority party that is predominantly at fault.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
36.1.21  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @36.1.19    9 months ago
Of course had Democrats not voted in total lockstep, most of this was avoidable.

So you fault the Ds for not voting in total lockstep.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
36.1.22  Texan1211  replied to  George @36.1.16    9 months ago

it is unreasonable to expect integrity from some folk.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
36.1.23  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @36.1.21    9 months ago

Now look here.

I am typing ordinary words that everyone here should understand.

Just read what I write, and it isn't necessary for you to tell me what I state or mean.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
36.1.24  afrayedknot  replied to  TᵢG @36.1.21    9 months ago

Just ignore the banality. It is beyond tiresome. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
36.1.25  TᵢG  replied to  George @36.1.18    9 months ago
So 208 democrats vote together to throw the house into chaos, and it is primarily the republicans fault. Do you honestly think the democrat vote would have been any different no matter who the speaker was?

Yes, George, the GOP had the speakership.   They have the majority.   The Ds cannot do a damn thing to impact the speakership if the Rs had their shit together.

Why on Earth are you attempting to argue against this?   It is obvious.   The majority party has the hammer, it (in aggregate) rules.

Do you honestly think the democrat vote would have been any different no matter who the speaker was?

My comment should have already answered that question.   The Ds voted against having a GOP speaker.   So unless there is a GOP speaker that they like, they will not support him/her.   

The Ds clearly stated that they would not support McCarthy without concessions.   McCarthy would not give concessions; they did not support him.   Blind fucking partisanship at play with both parties and we saw the result.

But, regardless, the GOP has the majority and has the hammer and this is predominantly at fault for this fiasco.   And the GOP is predominantly at fault for electing a Young Earth Creationist, Trump supporter, etc. as Speaker of the House.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
36.1.26  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @36.1.21    9 months ago
Of course had Democrats not voted in total lockstep, most of this was avoidable. So you fault the Ds for not voting in total lockstep.

The first part is mine.

And somehow you managed to twist that into me faulting the Dems for NOT  voting in lockstep. How is beyond me.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
36.1.27  George  replied to  TᵢG @36.1.25    9 months ago
And the GOP is predominantly at fault for electing a Young Earth Creationist, Trump supporter, etc. as Speaker of the House

this talking point could have come directly from the party of no personal responsibility. This could have never happened if democrats had an iota of integrity and didn’t support a scumbag like Matt Gaetz. They once again are going to be claiming like you are for them that they aren’t responsible for the unintended consequences of their actions. 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
36.1.28  Right Down the Center  replied to  Texan1211 @36.1.15    9 months ago

jrSmiley_28_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
36.1.29  Texan1211  replied to  George @36.1.27    9 months ago

Hey its easy pretending Democrats had no part in anything!

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
36.1.30  Right Down the Center  replied to  Texan1211 @36.1.23    9 months ago

jrSmiley_28_smiley_image.gif jrSmiley_28_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
36.1.31  TᵢG  replied to  George @36.1.27    9 months ago
They once again are going to be claiming like you are for them that they aren’t responsible for the unintended consequences of their actions. 

The Ds have culpability since the Rs fractured caucus opened a vulnerability.   So you can fault the Ds for not doing a better job with that opportunity.   That is fair.

But no matter what, the GOP is the majority; it holds the hammer.   It can pick and hold whoever it wants as Speaker and the Ds cannot do a damn thing about it.

The Speaker fiasco happened only because the GOP (in particular, the House GOP) is dysfunctional.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
36.1.32  George  replied to  Texan1211 @36.1.19    9 months ago

It’s amazing isn’t it? The democrats vote 208 to zero to remove the speaker and then some say the don’t have culpability for the results of their actions. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
36.1.33  Texan1211  replied to  George @36.1.32    9 months ago

I know, crazy, huh?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
36.1.34  Gsquared  replied to  TᵢG @36.1.31    9 months ago

If the Democrats were in the majority and Pelosi was the Speaker when this occurred, how many republicans would have voted to keep her to "maintain stability"?  How many republicans would have voted for any Democrat for Speaker?  Not a single one, of course, but that doesn't stop the reactionary propagandists from pretending like the Democrats caused this situation.   Fortunately, most normal people aren't stupid enough to believe the reactionaries' B.S.  That doesn't stop them from constantly spewing it, though.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
36.1.35  TᵢG  replied to  Gsquared @36.1.34    9 months ago
If the Democrats were in the majority and Pelosi was the Speaker when this occurred, how many republicans would have voted to keep her to "maintain stability"? 

Indeed.  Best to explain this to George, et.al.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
36.1.36  George  replied to  Gsquared @36.1.34    9 months ago

Holy crap that comment clearly show that you aren’t reading the comments or actually understanding them. Nobody expects Democrats to vote for a republican speaker, we had a speaker already, to Quote you, most normal people aren’t stupid enough to not already know this, the point is that 208 pieces of shit Democrats voted with Matt Gaetz to remove the current speaker throwing the house into chaos, the amazing part is there are partisan hacks dumb enough to claim they aren’t responsible. Let me say it again, 208 democrats voted to remove an existing speaker! They are as big as pieces of shit as their buddy Gaetz is.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
36.1.37  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Krishna @36.1.2    9 months ago
"is he a "flat earther"?"

I think that anyone whose school classroom had a map like this on the wall is BOUND to think like a flat-earther:

R-C.1b938d2bd77aa0d2a4cf72a14fb405a4?rik=o3eaQyQzzeH68g&riu=http%3a%2f%2fjewishmuseummd.org%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2015%2f01%2fmaps_countries_world.jpg&ehk=W0WIrzh3UvGbj0WgsxATWWpK9nSSVMkazMsiQAKQYtU%3d&risl=1&pid=ImgRaw&r=0

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
36.1.38  Gsquared  replied to  TᵢG @36.1.35    9 months ago

That would be an exercise in futility, wouldn't it?  It would certainly garner a bunch of double-talk, as you can see already.  When they miss the point, they miss it by a mile.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
36.1.39  TᵢG  replied to  Gsquared @36.1.38    9 months ago
That would be an exercise in futility, wouldn't it? 

Yes.

But I feel a little sorry for those who feel compelled to spin things in favor of the GOP.   Just think of the cognitive dissonance involved in such an endeavor.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
36.1.40  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @36.1.39    9 months ago

Gee, that would be kind of like pretending Democrats had zero to do with the Speaker being ousted 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
36.1.41  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @36.1.40    9 months ago

You need to stop leaping to the extremes (aka strawman claims) and instead focus on what people actually write.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
36.1.42  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @36.1.41    9 months ago

Now, that IS rich!

Hmmm, I don't tell folks what they really meant or thought, I don't invent things and pretend other posters have stated what I invented, so I really am having a very hard time relating your post to me.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
36.1.43  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @36.1.42    9 months ago

Then I will suggest that self-awareness would be helpful.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
36.1.44  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @36.1.43    9 months ago

Hey, I'm willing if you are!

Let me know!

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
36.1.45  Gsquared  replied to  TᵢG @36.1.39    9 months ago
I feel a little sorry for those who feel compelled to spin things in favor of the GOP

Hmm.  You're much more compassionate than I am.  

Just think of the cognitive dissonance involved in such an endeavor.

That they demonstrate in spades, daily.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
36.1.46  George  replied to  TᵢG @36.1.39    9 months ago

Wow, pointing out that the democrats bare some responsibility for ousting an existing speaker by siding in with a piece of shit like Gaetz is spinning things to favor republicans? Talk about a cognitive dissonance, just blame Trump, that’s hilarious, partisan hackery at it’s finest.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
36.1.47  Texan1211  replied to  George @36.1.46    9 months ago

Of course you are correct.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
36.1.48  TᵢG  replied to  George @36.1.46    9 months ago
Wow, pointing out that the democrats bare some responsibility for ousting an existing speaker by siding in with a piece of shit like Gaetz is spinning things to favor republicans?

No, focusing on the Ds when the Rs are predominantly at fault is spinning things to favor the Rs.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
36.1.49  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @36.1.48    9 months ago

Nobody is spinning.

What we are trying to get through is that had Democrats not voted en masse to remove the speaker, maybe things wouldn't have gone the way they did.

Yes, Republicans were not 100% united, so that's on them.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
36.1.50  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @36.1.49    9 months ago
What we are trying to get through is that had Democrats not voted en masse to remove the speaker, maybe things wouldn't have gone the way they did.

No shit, Texan.   I have not suggested otherwise.   Pay attention:

TiG@36.1.31The Ds have culpability since the Rs fractured caucus opened a vulnerability.   So you can fault the Ds for not doing a better job with that opportunity.   That is fair.

Spelling this out even more, the Ds certainly had a huge bargaining chip but they apparently could not find a way to use it with McCarthy and resorted to allowing the GOP push out their Speaker.

Now, assuming you read this finally, here is the balance of my comment:

TiG@36.1.31 ☞  But no matter what, the GOP is the majority; it holds the hammer.   It can pick and hold whoever it wants as Speaker and the Ds cannot do a damn thing about it.   The Speaker fiasco happened only because the GOP (in particular, the House GOP) is dysfunctional.
 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
36.1.51  George  replied to  TᵢG @36.1.48    9 months ago

Talk about spinning, let’s summarize shall we? McCarthy negotiated a cr with democrats, Gaetz get pissed with his 7 buddies that McCarthy negotiated a bipartisan spending deal. 

So Gaetz being the little bitch brings onto the floor a motion to remove McCarthy and and all but 8 republicans vote to keep McCarthy and 208 democrats vote to remove the sitting speaker who just compromised with them and the republicans are primarily responsible. That is next level spinning to accuse others of spinning.

the entire democrat caucus voted for chaos, but because the republicans don’t vote like retarded lemmings like the democrats did they are at fault. That is next level fact twisting.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
36.1.52  Texan1211  replied to  George @36.1.51    9 months ago

At this point, I have a feeling facts aren't going to matter.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
36.1.53  TᵢG  replied to  George @36.1.51    9 months ago

You failed to show where I have spun anything.

You continue to speak in terms of parties, yet when it comes to assigning fault, you refuse to recognize that the GOP is the majority and holds the hammer ... because it has warring internal factions.

Now that is spin.

The reality is that we have two major parties.   The partisanship is acute.   The Ds will not vote for an R Speaker and the Rs will not vote for a D Speaker.

In a condition like that, the majority party has control.   If it is unable to hold its Speaker because it does not have its shit together, then it predominantly is at fault.   You fault the Ds for behaving like a partisan group when you know damn well that the Rs would do the same thing if the situation were reversed.

Neither party behaved well.   I would have liked to see the Ds cooperate with the Rs and help them nullify the GOP faction that was fucking up the GOP caucus.   But the two parties cannot seem to get past their blind partisanship to do so.

Thus, when assigning fault:

GOP is the majority, has the control, has primary fault

D is the minority, has a great bargaining chip due to GOP dysfunction, at fault for not using it responsibly

When you make post after post trying to suggest that the Ds are predominantly at fault, you are spinning like a top.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
36.1.54  Texan1211  replied to  George @36.1.51    9 months ago

Might be interesting if Democrats take the House and The Squad gets a wild hair up their ass and pull something similar to Gaetz.

I'll bring the popcorn!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
36.1.55  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @36.1.50    9 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
36.1.56  George  replied to  Texan1211 @36.1.49    9 months ago

Hopefully the new speaker learns the lesson that democrats taught the old speaker. Democrats in positions of authority have no honor or integrity and their “ word” is meaningless, I would tell the piece of crap Jeffries that no Democrat sponsored bill reaches the floor, no democrat amendment to a bill passes and no compromise with democrats in the house. The last speaker did and they stabbed him in the back.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
36.1.57  Texan1211  replied to  George @36.1.56    9 months ago

Dang sure can't trust Democrats in the House 

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
36.1.58  George  replied to  TᵢG @36.1.53    9 months ago

you know damn well that the Rs would do the same thing if the situation were reversed

The republicans wouldn’t vote with Tlaib or AOC or the little terrorist girls, if the wanted to replace a speaker who just negotiated a bipartisan bill, intelligent people know this, partisan hack deflect and spin.

i knew better than try to have a fact based discussion with you , back to ignoring your partisan crap.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
36.1.59  George  replied to  Texan1211 @36.1.57    9 months ago

Didn’t you get the memo? It’s the Republicans fault they don’t vote in mass like ignorant democrat lemmings.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
36.1.60  Texan1211  replied to  George @36.1.59    9 months ago

I said facts weren't going to matter.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
36.1.61  TᵢG  replied to  George @36.1.58    9 months ago
The republicans wouldn’t vote with Tlaib or AOC or the little terrorist girls, if the wanted to replace a speaker who just negotiated a bipartisan bill, intelligent people know this, partisan hack deflect and spin.

You think that you would see Rs defect from their caucus and vote to keep a D Speaker in office ... or vote to elect a D Speaker ... or not allow the Ds dysfunction to cause their Speakership to crumble?   This is what you have resorted to now?   That is not contemporary political reality, it is fantasy.   You are ignoring the divisive partisanship at play today.

You also refuse to face some very basic facts:

  • The Rs are the majority party and hold the hammer.   The Rs (as a whole) can elect the Speaker (and hold the Speaker) regardless of what the Ds want.
  • The Ds are the minority party but not by much.   If the majority is fractured (as it is), the Ds have the opportunity to leverage their influence.
  • The Rs failed to hold their Speaker due to their own dysfunction.   
  • Of course the Ds did not cross over without concessions that would justify such an extraordinary act.
  • The Ds failed to take responsible advantage of their leverage and thus instead of getting something valuable, they wound up wasting time and votes only to end up with a crap Speaker like Johnson.

One can assign fault to both parties but one cannot, being factual and logical, spin this situation as being predominantly the fault of the minority party.   It is the GOP that is predominantly at fault.   No amount of name-calling, piss and vinegar will change that fact.

i knew better than try to have a fact based discussion with you ...

Next time make sure you have facts and logic on your side.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
36.1.62  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @36.1.61    9 months ago
You think that you would see Rs defect from their caucus and vote to keep a D Speaker in office ... or vote to elect a D Speaker ... or not allow the Ds dysfunction to cause their Speakership to crumble?   

Personally, I would hope Republicans would show more integrity than the Democrats just exhibited.

If they did not, that would be a legitimate reason to criticize them just like we are criticizing Democrats for.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
36.1.63  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @36.1.62    9 months ago

You can hope until blue in the face, but there are certain factors in contemporary political reality that should be obvious.

Right now the Rs and the Ds are the Hatfields and the McCoys.   They are utterly divisive and partisan.   They are after short-term jabs and are not thinking about the future.

It is pathetic.   But that is the nature of blind partisanship.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
36.1.64  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @36.1.63    9 months ago

I stand by what I wrote.

It would be pitiful if Republicans pulled the same stunt as the Democrats did.

Perhaps partisanship is keeping some folks from recognizing exactly what the Democrats did.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
36.1.65  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @36.1.64    9 months ago
I stand by what I wrote.

An empty and pointless declaration.

It would be pitiful if Republicans pulled the same stunt as the Democrats did.

It would be normal partisan politics in our current divisive, partisan political environment.   Partisan politics is the antithesis of responsible, critical thinking.  It yields suboptimal and often counterproductive results.   You can pretend that the GOP is above it but that laughter you hear is not because of someone telling a funny joke.

Perhaps partisanship is keeping some folks from recognizing exactly what the Democrats did.

Perhaps you are not reading what has been written.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
36.1.66  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @36.1.65    9 months ago
An empty and pointless declaration.

What do you gain from such a comment? Better yet, what do you hope to accomplish?


It would be normal partisan politics in our current divisive, partisan political environment. 

Which is pitiful, thank you.

You can pretend that the GOP is above it but that laughter you hear is not because of someone telling a funny joke.

You know, if you guess enough times, you may eventually luck out and get what I said without insulting me.

I CLEARLY did not say the GOP was above doing the same crap Democrats just did.

It senseless to pretend I did.

Perhaps you are not reading what has been written.

That remark is tired, old, insulting, and false.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
36.1.67  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @36.1.66    9 months ago

If the situation were reversed and the Ds were the majority, would the Rs be likely to do the same thing the Ds just did?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
36.1.68  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @36.1.67    9 months ago

Yes.

Does that make it better somehow?

Maybe that is why I clearly stated this earlier:

Post 36.1.62

Personally, I would hope Republicans would show more integrity than the Democrats just exhibited.

If they did not, that would be a legitimate reason to criticize them just like we are criticizing Democrats for.

And I was really hoping that you were reading the comments, too.

I did notice you avoided the questions I asked, so in the future please don't come at me with posts about me running from or avoiding answering questions.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
36.1.69  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @36.1.68    9 months ago
Yes.

Then it is pointless for you to argue with me if you agree that the Rs would likely do the same thing if the situation was reversed.

I had already responded to your hope comment and noted that it is not realistic.

I did notice you avoided the questions I asked, ...

Nope, does not work that way.   You asking stupid questions does not give you a pass for running from thoughtful, probative questions.  And I answer way too many of your stupid questions as it is.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
36.1.70  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @36.1.69    9 months ago
Then it is pointless for you to argue with me if you agree that the Rs would likely do the same thing if the situation was reversed.

I am not arguing with you. I had made that point a while back and then I just got through pointing it out to you again. Maybe the third time will be the charm.  

I had already responded to your hope comment and noted that it is not realistic.

Yes, and I responded.

Nope, does not work that way. 

Oh, but it will. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
36.1.71  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @36.1.70    9 months ago
I am not arguing with you.

Then stop replying.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
36.1.72  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @36.1.71    9 months ago
Then stop replying.

Sorry, that is not your decision to make.

One can always opt for the impasse feature.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
36.1.73  evilone  replied to  TᵢG @36.1.61    9 months ago

Your points were valid and I agree with all but this last one.

The Ds failed to take responsible advantage of their leverage and thus instead of getting something valuable, they wound up wasting time and votes only to end up with a crap Speaker like Johnson.

Getting concessions and working bi-partisanly would have been the smart thing to do, but as you've pointed out it was a long shot at best. The political value of the Republicans being pulled even further to the right will galvanize Democratic voters and donors in the run up to next years election. It will also push moderate independents to vote against even more populism. No matter what the Dems win something.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
36.1.74  TᵢG  replied to  evilone @36.1.73    9 months ago

Yeah, and that point was driven by me trying to reach some level of common ground with my interlocutors.   The idea of course is to get them to recognize that I realize the Ds had opportunities to inject rationality into this process (in theory) that they did not pursue and that I was not arguing that this was 100% the fault of the Rs.

But, as you can observe, there is no reasoning with some people.

No matter what the Dems win something.

My concern is that the dysfunction (and sheer lunacy) of the current GOP (which I do not recognize anymore) will drive too much power to the Ds.   And it is clear that many of those who support the GOP are too caught up in loyalty with the brand to realize that the party with the label "GOP" is not at all the party it used to be.

 
 
 
goose is back
Sophomore Guide
36.1.75  goose is back  replied to  evilone @36.1.73    9 months ago
The political value of the Republicans being pulled even further to the right will galvanize Democratic voters and donors in the run up to next years election.

What do you consider Republicans being pulled right?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
36.1.76  TᵢG  replied to  goose is back @36.1.75    9 months ago

Are you aware of who they elected Speaker?

 
 
 
goose is back
Sophomore Guide
36.1.77  goose is back  replied to  TᵢG @36.1.76    9 months ago
Are you aware of who they elected Speaker?

Yes, that doesn't answer my question.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
36.1.78  TᵢG  replied to  goose is back @36.1.77    9 months ago

State the answer you want and maybe one of us can provide it for you.

Do you not recognize Johnson as being significantly right of center?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
36.1.79  Texan1211  replied to  goose is back @36.1.77    9 months ago

Democrats have absolutely no business talking about any Speaker after ousting one.

 
 
 
goose is back
Sophomore Guide
36.1.80  goose is back  replied to  TᵢG @36.1.78    9 months ago
State the answer you want

I didn't make the claim, Evilone made the comment and you elected to respond, what is going to pull the Republicans to the right. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
36.1.81  Texan1211  replied to  goose is back @36.1.80    9 months ago
what is going to pull the Republicans to the right. 

Judging from the lack of response to your question, perhaps the answer is left-wing imagination?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
36.1.82  TᵢG  replied to  goose is back @36.1.80    9 months ago

I gave you my answer.   I suspect evilone would give you a similar answer.

Do you think Johnson is to the left, center, or to the right within the GOP?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
36.1.83  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @36.1.81    9 months ago

Goosie asked his question 31 minutes ago.   Give evilone some time.   I am sure he does not wait by his keyboard all day for NT.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
36.1.84  evilone  replied to  goose is back @36.1.75    9 months ago
What do you consider Republicans being pulled right?

McCarthy (and Scalise and Emmer too) were as far to the right as one could go and keep some semblance of traditional Republican. Johnson (and Jordan) is a full on right wing populist and Trump ass kisser. That is a full jerk of the chain rightward.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
36.1.85  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @36.1.83    9 months ago
Goosie asked his question 31 minutes ago.   Give evilone some time.   I am sure he does not wait by his keyboard all day for NT.

yeah, I read.

Thought maybe since you decided to respond that you might have actually had an answer to the question.

I'll wait for who it was originally addressed to.

 
 
 
goose is back
Sophomore Guide
36.1.86  goose is back  replied to  TᵢG @36.1.82    9 months ago
Do you think Johnson is to the left, center, or to the right within the GOP?

Johnson is not the questions. you make claims about right wing polices and loyalty with the brand, what are they.  I am sure you had something in mind when you typed it.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
36.1.87  evilone  replied to  Texan1211 @36.1.79    9 months ago
Democrats have absolutely no business talking about any Speaker after ousting one.

I didn't realize Gaetz was a Democrat. They keep putting an R after his name on the news. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
36.1.88  Texan1211  replied to  evilone @36.1.87    9 months ago
I didn't realize Gaetz was a Democrat.

He isn't.

Very perceptive.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
36.1.89  TᵢG  replied to  goose is back @36.1.86    9 months ago
Johnson is not the questions.

Johnson is the Speaker of the House.   You do not see the significance of the House Republicans voting to make him Speaker???

Is it your opinion that the House Republicans elected a Speaker with whom they politically disagree?

 
 
 
goose is back
Sophomore Guide
36.1.90  goose is back  replied to  evilone @36.1.84    9 months ago
That is a full jerk of the chain rightward.

Yeah OK, you don't like Johnson, tell me what this full jerk rightward is going to be?

McCarthy (and Scalise and Emmer too) were as far to the right as one could go and keep some semblance of traditional Republican. 

Don't blame Johnson for the Democrats fucking themselves. 

 
 
 
goose is back
Sophomore Guide
36.1.91  goose is back  replied to  TᵢG @36.1.89    9 months ago
Johnson is the Speaker of the House.

You have no answer to claims you make. 

 
 
 
goose is back
Sophomore Guide
36.1.92  goose is back  replied to  TᵢG @36.1.89    9 months ago
Is it your opinion that the House Republicans elected a Speaker with whom they politically disagree?

Where on God's green earth did you come up with that, or do you just enjoy making stuff up?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
36.1.93  TᵢG  replied to  goose is back @36.1.91    9 months ago

WTF does that mean.   Johnson IS the Speaker of the House.

Do you think Johnson reflects the center of the GOP?

You keep dodging every question.   That just makes it look as though you have not thought this through.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
36.1.94  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @36.1    9 months ago

"A Young Earth Creationist (meaning that he believes the universe was created 6,000 years ago and that biological evolution is a worldwide fraud) who supports Trump and helped support his Big Lie and is basically hard core against abortion, climate science, etc.?"

In other words, he thinks differently than you, which is OK. What's all this got to do with being speaker.
 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
36.1.95  Texan1211  replied to  Greg Jones @36.1.94    9 months ago
In other words, he thinks differently than you, which is OK. What's all this got to do with being speaker.

Not one single freaking thing.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
36.1.96  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @36.1.94    9 months ago

Best to NOT make things personal.   I made no comment about me.

Young Earth Creationists believe the universe is 6,000 years old, that biological evolution is a fraud, that scientists worldwide are pulling a con job with all dating methods, etc.

Trump's Big Lie was a con on the nation and Johnson was there supporting it.

Johnson is hard core on abortion, climate science, green energy, etc.

These have nothing to do with me.   They are absolutes that reflect where Johnson stands ideologically.


Do you think Johnson is to the left, center, or to the right within the GOP?

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
36.1.97  evilone  replied to  goose is back @36.1.90    9 months ago
...tell me what this full jerk rightward is going to be?

We will see how much sway he really has as Speaker, but he:

  • disagreed with the military of COVID vaccines - so against mission ready?
  • is in favor of national anti-abortion, supports a 6 week ban.
  • doesn't want to fund anti-hunger programs for children (so force them to be born and then starve them?) and drastically cut SNAP.
  • for forcing school children to pray in school and diverting money poor school districts need to religious schools via vouchers.
  • voted against the SAFE Banking Act that would let state cannabis businesses work and pay taxes like every other business.
  • has a shit record on climate and wants to ease permitting rules under the National Environmental Policy Act.
  • wrote and amicus brief to the SCOTUS against the FCC, yet cheered spending billions in Louisiana for rural broadband.
  • voted against bills that would strengthen anti-trust laws.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
36.1.98  evilone  replied to  Texan1211 @36.1.88    9 months ago
He isn't.

It was Gaetz that put the motion on the floor, but you continue to blame Dems? Dems took advantage of the Republican power struggle. Moderates Republicans lost, not Dems.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
36.1.99  Texan1211  replied to  evilone @36.1.98    9 months ago
It was Gaetz that put the motion on the floor, but you continue to blame Dems?

Yes it sure was Gaetz.

But we all know that had not Democrats went along with Gaetz, much of this probably would never have happened.

As some Democrats are fond of saying, Republicans can't govern. 

And now, it is clear that Democrats didn't want to legislate.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
36.1.100  evilone  replied to  Texan1211 @36.1.99    9 months ago
But we all know that had not Democrats went along with Gaetz, much of this probably would never have happened.

As I said, the Dems exploited the power play in the Republican Party. McCarthy is as much at fault as the Dems since he could have reached out for cross party help.

And now, it is clear that Democrats didn't want to legislate.

It's fully clear to anyone PAYING ATTENTION that neither party wants to legislate. It's also fully clear to anyone PAYING ATTENTION the partisan patsies on both sides keep cheering them on while pointing fingers at everyone else. 

A pox on both houses...

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
36.1.101  Jack_TX  replied to  Texan1211 @36.1.54    9 months ago
Might be interesting if Democrats take the House and The Squad gets a wild hair up their ass and pull something similar to Gaetz. I'll bring the popcorn!

That almost happened.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
36.1.102  Jack_TX  replied to  evilone @36.1.100    9 months ago
McCarthy is as much at fault as the Dems since he could have reached out for cross party help.

Yes and no. Had he done so he could easily have been primaried out of his seat.