|
Charlz Guybon posted:But they have to vote for the rule threshold for that. A prior congress can not bind a future congress with rules, so right now by default a majority can vote for a new speaker. They would need a majority to vote for new rules which would include whatever they agreed to. If Kevin reneged (and a majority cared enough about it to start over) it would be obvious immediately with the new proposed rules saying only party leaders can call for the vote or whatever, so they'd vote that down and we'd be back to voting for a new speaker again.
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 04:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:17 |
|
|
Uglycat posted:At what point does reality necessarily imply that there is no unified "Republican Party", and therefore such a party does not have a majority of seats in congress? That's exactly what this is. If a party thinks they have a majority they need to pass a symbolic motion to prove that they do in fact have a majority. If they can't then they aren't, and floor's open for anyone else who thinks they can scrape a majority together to have a go at it. This is how you get coalitions and minority governments.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 04:31
|
|
|
Rigel posted:A prior congress can not bind a future congress with rules, so right now by default a majority can vote for a new speaker. They would need a majority to vote for new rules which would include whatever they agreed to. If Kevin reneged (and a majority cared enough about it to start over) it would be obvious immediately with the new proposed rules saying only party leaders can call for the vote or whatever, so they'd vote that down and we'd be back to voting for a new speaker again. But his two hundred diehards don't want it to be one vote threshold or even five, so what's to stop Kevin from immediately stabbing the HFC in the back in the unlikely event he gets elected Speaker? Nothing. His 200 won't want to start over and the HFC won't go crawling to the Dems for votes even if they were open to giving it just to shank McCarthy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 04:36
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Sooo.... what do you do? Eventually someone will get sick of this and give in. The divides here aren't actually that deep, it's just a pissing contest to determine the factional balance of power. Because the US system heavily encourages a two-party system, situations like this are exceedingly rare. This is the first time in literally 100 years that a Speaker wasn't elected on the first ballot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 04:40
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:But his two hundred diehards don't want it to be one vote threshold or even five, so what's to stop Kevin from immediately stabbing the HFC in the back in the unlikely event he gets elected Speaker? Nothing. His 200 won't want to start over and the HFC won't go crawling to the Dems for votes even if they were open to giving it just to shank McCarthy. A majority has to vote in favor of the "1 random guy can't call for a vote to vacate the chair" rule. If the rules package contains an immediate betrayal, the HFC votes no.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 04:46
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:If it actually mirrored this the President would appoint the government from members of the House (and the Senate), who would remain with their parliamentary duties, and the President would also be able to disband Parliament and call for an election. And from the Founders' perspective, allowing the executive to unilaterally disband the legislature had been a major cause of the English Civil War only a little over a century prior — in this regard, they likely believed they were correcting a flaw in the extant English system.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 04:48
|
|
|
From a certain perspective, Jeffries calling Trump's 2016 win "illegitimate" and then voting to certify the election, is the same as Trump claiming the election was stolen, waging countless losing lawsuits, and encouraging people to stop the certification by storming the capital. I feel very clever drawing this equivalency.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 04:49
|
|
|
George Santos just needs to convince a small number of far right Republicans that his name is Kevin McCarthy
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 04:50
|
|
|
Are we? Who is this mystery candidate? https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1611168127106031619
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 04:58
|
|
|
Barrel Cactaur posted:we cut out about the monstrous tumor of slavery but kept in basically all the stupid. For the House in particular, nothing legal is preventing a set of rules compatible with a coalition, perhaps with the speaker being largely unimportant.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 05:02
|
|
|
Gyges posted:I'm surprised none of the Freshmen Democrats have tried approaching McCarthy to see if he'll think they're new Republicans and toss them some concessions while he's on his abject debasement kick. I'm not a McCarthy expert here but others have said that no one trusts him to actually hold up to any of his promises and any means to punish him for breaking those promises are limited at best since D's are a minority in the HoR. R's would happily sit back and watch the D's get hosed no matter what on broken promises and not call McCarthy out or help to vote to punish him in some fashion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 05:10
|
|
|
Wow, the last time the red state congressional elects couldn't agree on a speaker was in the 1850s, you say? It's good that all of that infighting stopped abruptly in the early 1860s, for no specific reason. America is gonna be just fine I think!
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 05:14
|
|
|
Also the entire Republican thing for the last 25-30 years has been "The Democrats are going to destroy our country because they are crazy leftists!" If you make a deal it exposes the far right's rhetoric for the lunacy it is. The Republican party WILL fracture if that happens.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 05:20
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Are we? Who is this mystery candidate? I love seeing MTG flounder like this. Come onnnn guys play with meeeee play with meeeeeee
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 05:21
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Are we? Who is this mystery candidate? Depends on how you want to define plotting. The Democrats are open to some sort of deal, but their concessions are draconian nonsense like promise to not run things like a 5 year old with poo poo covered hands.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 05:22
|
|
|
smoobles posted:Wow, the last time the red state congressional elects couldn't agree on a speaker was in the 1850s, you say? It stopped in the late 1860s. quote:When the 39th Congress finally opened on December 4, 1865, the large Republican majority in the House immediately counteracted the President. Edward McPherson — Clerk of the House and longtime ally of Thaddeus Stevens — simply refused to read the names of Members-elect from former Confederate states during the opening roll call. None were sworn in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 05:24
|
|
|
I think at this point it is pretty obvious that McCarthy isn’t going to become speaker. The problem is that no one in the GOP House has a plan on what to do now. Their leadership all basically are McCarthy cronies and there isn’t much outside of that. Frankly giving their terrorist wing everything they can think of is an incredibly dangerous game even if they do somehow get them to vote McCarthy in. Really the best option would be making a deal with the Democrats, get some sort of power sharing agreement and try to salvage what you got left. They barely have a majority in the first place. Their grandiose plans were never going to happen in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 05:26
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:I'm not a McCarthy expert here but others have said that no one trusts him to actually hold up to any of his promises and any means to punish him for breaking those promises are limited at best since D's are a minority in the HoR. R's would happily sit back and watch the D's get hosed no matter what on broken promises and not call McCarthy out or help to vote to punish him in some fashion. Dude's promised so many things to do many people, if you can get one there's a good chance he can't even remember who he owes it to. So as long as you aren't asking him Insanity Caucus exclusive items, you just might get a Congressional trip to study Hawaiian beaches thrown on the docket.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 05:28
|
|
|
I’m so confused about all the promises. What’s the point? At this point a group of R’s would be better off just defecting and selecting someone with the Dems so they don’t have to go through with this embarrassing poo poo and damage their brand further
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 05:35
|
|
|
i am a moron posted:I’m so confused about all the promises. What’s the point? At this point a group of R’s would be better off just defecting and selecting someone with the Dems so they don’t have to go through with this embarrassing poo poo and damage their brand further For 80% of the representatives that do this, it will never be their brand ever again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 05:37
|
|
|
MY BRAND!
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 05:38
|
|
|
I hesitate to say "McCarthy will never be Speaker" because I don't know who the other guy is. That they're going through this madness without anyone saying "ok, gently caress off and step aside and lets see if a new name can fix this" seems to suggest no one else wants the job. They basically had to beg Paul Ryan to do it the last time this happened. So in paper I still think McCarthy is the most likely guy based on how many people own him, how desperately he wants it, and how little anyone else seems to want the poo poo job especially after this week. The hurdle seems like its whether or not the "Never Kevin" people can make peace with that enough to secure the votes. Its entirely possible that that at this stage they see stopping McCarthy as the biggest rhetorical victory. So in that case maybe it will take talking a Steve Scalise or whoever into becoming the save "compromise" so they can still boast that they drained the swamp or whatever. So basically I think the realistic scenarios are: 1) McCarthy gives up the world to become Speaker in name only. 2) This strings out long enough for "compromise with the Democrats" or "too many absent votes" to become a plausible scenario in which case the HFC rather they have the stuff that was promised them but demand McCarthy get tossed under the boss.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 05:39
|
|
|
Are you trying to persuade them to do it? https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1611205867449319424
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 05:58
|
|
|
Isn't a nonfunctioning House way more strategically valuable to the dems than any level of 'moderation' in the choice of speaker?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 06:00
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Isn't a nonfunctioning House way more strategically valuable to the dems than any level of 'moderation' in the choice of speaker? It’s strategically valuable to republicans because they want people to think that government is silly and incapable of making their lives better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 06:03
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Isn't a nonfunctioning House way more strategically valuable to the dems than any level of 'moderation' in the choice of speaker? No, since the Democrats want a budget to be passed every year.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 06:06
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Are we? Who is this mystery candidate? Upton's turned it down while Amash is wandering around congress lobbying for it with nobody being interested. Not a lot of moderate Western Michigan republicans left unless we can figure out how to resurrect Ford.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 06:07
|
|
|
The complete absence of Steve Scalise in all this has been an enduring mystery to me since this started. The fact that he has not emerged by now as the heir apparent to get McCarthy to sit down means that he probably doesn't want to be Speaker under any circumstances, so that's why the rest of the caucus is flailing about nominating clown show candidates because no one actually seriously wants the gig besides McCarthy. The #2 option for them at this point besides McCarthy is literally nobody. Because if it was Scalise, we'd know by now because Steve Scalise, the physically dickless wonder that he is, is more than ready, willing, and able to just walk in and poo poo down McCarthy's neck like a honking giga chad if he wants something, and he hasn't which means he doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 06:08
|
|
|
Yeah, I think more bad things happen by a non functioning government not doing what it needs to do than by a bad party control of one house of Congress you can at least push back against or have checks on. And like the entire point of a lot of these people is to make the government an incompetent mess so it can't do anything and they can then complain about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 06:08
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:No, since the Democrats want a budget to be passed every year. And raise the debt ceiling.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 06:08
|
|
|
The Democrats are always kind of bound by their belief in such things as "having a functional government." At some point they will cave to something if its necessary to prevent the complete collapse of the US. Republicans have found great value in rhetorically arguing that we don't need no government. Then they get surprised every once in a while to find out that some of their nuttier members actually believe that bullshit. So to answer the question, this poo poo show benefits the Democrats only as long as there isn't actually any work to do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 06:09
|
|
|
nine-gear crow posted:The complete absence of Steve Scalise in all this has been an enduring mystery to me since this started. The fact that he has not emerged by now as the heir apparent to get McCarthy to sit down means that he probably doesn't want to be Speaker under any circumstances, so that's why the rest of the caucus is flailing about nominating clown show candidates because no one actually seriously wants the gig besides McCarthy. The #2 option for them at this point besides McCarthy is literally nobody. Because if it was Scalise, we'd know by now because Steve Scalise, the physically dickless wonder that he is, is more than ready, willing, and able to just walk in and poo poo down McCarthy's neck like a honking giga chad if he wants something, and he hasn't which means he doesn't. Maybe he thinks the crazies won't vote for him either and he isn't willing to be humiliated like McCarthy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 06:09
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Isn't a nonfunctioning House way more strategically valuable to the dems than any level of 'moderation' in the choice of speaker? If Republicans were desperate enough to make a deal Democrats could probably get a lot out of it. I think it would be worth voting for a Republican speaker if they guaranteed a vote on anything that passes the senate with a filibuster proof majority, gave Democrats equal strength on committees, and raised the debt ceiling. There's no pressure to make a deal until July, Republicans are the ones having a shitshow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 06:10
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Are we? Who is this mystery candidate? Oh no. Not a moderate. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 06:21
|
|
|
i am a moron posted:I’m so confused about all the promises. What’s the point? At this point a group of R’s would be better off just defecting and selecting someone with the Dems so they don’t have to go through with this embarrassing poo poo and damage their brand further If a small group of Republicans break to help a moderate get elected they risk the party turning against them and getting primaried hard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 06:30
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Isn't a nonfunctioning House way more strategically valuable to the dems than any level of 'moderation' in the choice of speaker? The House does need to function occasionally, so they can't just leave it like this for two whole years. That said, it's still a few months before any House action is urgently needed, so the Dems don't need to be in any hurry to put an end to this. Thing is, the House will still be barely functional even if they pick a speaker. Even if the Freedom Caucus loses and McCarthy gets the speakership, the Freedom Caucus could refuse to vote for bills he wants. This is just the beginning - they could potentially pull this poo poo on any proposed bill that's brought to the floor. McCarthy would be almost totally unable to govern without throwing concessions to Dems.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 06:31
|
|
|
STAC Goat posted:Yeah, I think more bad things happen by a non functioning government not doing what it needs to do than by a bad party control of one house of Congress you can at least push back against or have checks on. And like the entire point of a lot of these people is to make the government an incompetent mess so it can't do anything and they can then complain about it. It's somewhat time-dependent. The value of a Republican controlled house (as opposed to a completely non-functional house) in the next month is significantly negative to the Democrats, because not having that delays the Republicans using it to make house committees to investigate if Biden's dog once went to the bathroom on an American flag or whatever. But the value of a Republican controlled house in the next year is positive for Democrats, because they don't want the country to burn down and the US can't operate with a paralyzed government forever. So for now, yes, they're going to laugh and eat popcorn. If it goes on long enough, the Democrats will go ahead and vote for a Republican, hopefully getting something in return.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 06:37
|
|
|
3rdEyeDeuteranopia posted:If a small group of Republicans break to help a moderate get elected they risk the party turning against them and getting primaried hard. Is there a point where the need is dire enough that the people who selected those candidates are fine with a compromise so literally anything can get done? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 06:43
|
|
|
Simplex posted:The Democrats are always kind of bound by their belief in such things as "having a functional government." At some point they will cave to something if its necessary to prevent the complete collapse of the US. budget has already been dealt with for what 10 months and dems certainly appear entirely willing to let republicans twist in the breeze for as long as they feel like loving around. dem pov is that every day that this goes on for is a win and I don't think that they're wrong about that? Worth noting, too, that republicans are 1000% eating the full blame for any disruption caused by this. nine-gear crow posted:The complete absence of Steve Scalise in all this has been an enduring mystery to me since this started. The fact that he has not emerged by now as the heir apparent to get McCarthy to sit down means that he probably doesn't want to be Speaker under any circumstances, so that's why the rest of the caucus is flailing about nominating clown show candidates because no one actually seriously wants the gig besides McCarthy. The #2 option for them at this point besides McCarthy is literally nobody. Because if it was Scalise, we'd know by now because Steve Scalise, the physically dickless wonder that he is, is more than ready, willing, and able to just walk in and poo poo down McCarthy's neck like a honking giga chad if he wants something, and he hasn't which means he doesn't. he's still considered the de facto second choice, but yeah he has been very conspicuously silent and it's entirely possible that everything about this has made him want no part of the job at all. Or he's just shutting up because he's agreed to let McCarthy do his thing for as long as it takes. idk there's a lot of weird noises (and even weirder silences) coming out of the republican house right now. Feels like this got away from both the moderates and the wingnuts and we're fully off script while they both scramble. Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 06:49 on Jan 6, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 06:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:17 |
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:budget has already been dealt with for what 10 months and dems certainly appear entirely willing to let republicans twist in the breeze for as long as they feel like loving around. dem pov is that every day that this goes on for is a win and I don't think that they're wrong about that? I think we hit the debt ceiling around July? And that assumes no major disasters or incidents come up that actually require the government to do something. But yeah, it isn't urgent for the Dems right now, so they're happy to watch the clown show.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 06:50
|
|