|
Epic High Five posted:My personal top 2 was keeping the same name because frankly Washington Football Team is perfect, or the Washington Clowns because of all the clowns in Congress To be fair, Washington Football Team was indeed perfect.
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 19:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 10:09 |
|
|
e_ wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2023 19:40
|
|
|
Hey, I just got back from a long vacation with no internet. So do we just not have a House now? Like, is that branch of government just shut down until the next election?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 04:54
|
|
|
Space Cadet Omoly posted:Hey, I just got back from a long vacation with no internet. So do we just not have a House now? Like, is that branch of government just shut down until the next election? Do not have a House, we will have one once a speaker is chosen. Worst case is a vote for plurality in 2 months.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 04:58
|
|
|
I've had this conjecture in my head about the vote-a-rama thing for a couple days now and I'd like to know where I'm getting off track, because I'm not seeing this discussed elsewhere. From what I've read: * The concessions the freedom caucus people are asking for are not about any particular policy at all, they're all about control over the position of speaker itself, and influence in committees; specifically the caucus wants more power to decide which bills ultimately get voted on. * The material differences in domestic policy support between the freedom caucus and other Republicans are not enormous, given how far right mainstream Republicans are nowadays. There's not some US company or industry whose stock will go up or down 10% based on who gets elected speaker. Maybe I'm missing something, but policy differences don't seem to be coming up in all the infighting here, it's mostly character attacks or arguments about who holds what power in the House. * The group of ~20 people who voted against McCarthy yesterday, have almost unanimously opposed funding Ukraine's army. They either voted against the last pure funding bill back in May, or they are newly elected but have made public statements opposing it. (Generally oblique or isolationist ones, snarking about sending money to Ukraine when the border isn't secure or whatever, but opposition is opposition) * That May Ukraine bill passed 86-11 in the Senate and 368-57 in the House, with basically unanimous Democratic support and quite a bit of Republican support as well. McCarthy himself voted Yes. It seems to me that if another bill to fund Ukraine's military came up for a vote this term, it would retain enough Republican support to pass the House - if it were put up for a vote - and likely the Senate, and of course Biden would sign it. There are huge material interests at stake in the Ukraine war - the stability of the Russian government, the ownership of Ukraine's gas fields and Crimea, etc. So it seems like the entity with the largest financial stake in this outcome is Russia's political leadership and petroleum interests. They would benefit if Ukraine funding were prevented from coming to a vote in the House. And it so happens that the straw stirring the drink, so to speak, is a small group of representatives who happen to have consistently supported this same financial interest, and they are currently scrabbling to attain the power to prevent bills from getting voted on. Even if McCarthy's opposition shrinks from 20 to 6, that still prevents him from becoming speaker - and a group of 6 is small enough to keep a secret. Again, this is largely speculation, and I'm no expert. What's wrong with this story?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 06:16
|
|
|
solarjetman posted:I've had this conjecture in my head about the vote-a-rama thing for a couple days now and I'd like to know where I'm getting off track, because I'm not seeing this discussed elsewhere. From what I've read: There were 57 people that voted against Ukraine funding in the house. Plus or minus the retires and freshman, that's about a two-in-three chance that the people you speculate on who could be in a secret cabal getting orders from afar still don't think that Kevin is the worst guy to have as speaker.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 06:32
|
|
|
Gerund posted:There were 57 people that voted against Ukraine funding in the house. Plus or minus the retires and freshman, that's about a two-in-three chance that the people you speculate on who could be in a secret cabal getting orders from afar still don't think that Kevin is the worst guy to have as speaker. Contrarily, if Russian interests have a number of 'controlled opposition" gop reps, and they aren't all required to shut down the house (and prevent further funding for ukraine), they would only use as many as needed to jam things up. Also, Russian interests may have appealed to some gop reps on the previous funding and found them persuadable, wheras others may be outright assets. The narrative seems coherent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 06:59
|
|
|
Ryan Grim has some alternate theories here: https://www.democracynow.org/2023/1/5/kevin_mccarthy_house_of_representatives_speakerquote:You know, yesterday Ralph Norman, who’s a Freedom Caucus member from South Carolina, told reporters in the hallway that the thing that Kevin McCarthy needs to agree to to win their support, that is nonnegotiable, is that he needs to be willing to shut the government down rather than raise the debt ceiling. You know, that’s a rather frightening statement on a number of levels. On the top level, it’s frightening because it’s a complete misunderstanding of how government works. There’s actually not a relationship between a government shutdown and hitting the debt ceiling. And one reporter immediately said to him, “You mean going into default?” And he said, “Well, you wouldn’t go into default if you start planning now to stop spending money, you know, among various agencies, and so we could avoid that.” Neither of these make it seem any more likely that further Ukraine funding is going to make it through Congress, but debt ceiling games of chicken might have similar dynamics. If the country approaches default closely enough that markets start to notice, ordinary plutocrats start to support making a deal, and control over the speaker will be the key to continuing the standoff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 07:24
|
|
|
Uglycat posted:Contrarily, if Russian interests have a number of 'controlled opposition" gop reps, and they aren't all required to shut down the house (and prevent further funding for ukraine), they would only use as many as needed to jam things up. They'd be using roughly 4 times as many as are required to shut down the house, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 07:58
|
|
|
solarjetman posted:
It's actually unclear how many of their crazy demands are actual demands and how many are simply things they're just asking for because McCarthy won't say no to anyone. The actual thing they for real want is to block McCarthy from being Speaker and use his scalp as proof they are strong and must be listened to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 08:14
|
|
|
solarjetman posted:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Caucus#Opposition_to_Speaker_of_the_House_John_Boehner https://web.archive.org/web/2018092...hutdown/280236/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2015_Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives_election https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-25/trump-meets-freedom-caucus-and-result-is-legislative-disaster etc Mia Wasikowska fucked around with this message at 12:24 on Jan 6, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 12:17
|
|
|
More Republicans being traitors wouldn't be surprising because, well, a bunch of them tried to overthrow the loving Federal government.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 13:51
|
|
|
solarjetman posted:Ryan Grim has some alternate theories here: https://www.democracynow.org/2023/1/5/kevin_mccarthy_house_of_representatives_speaker Thats part of the reason why a very large Ukraine bill was recently passed just a few weeks ago, the intention was to authorize a large enough appropriation to get through a couple years. And lend-lease is still available through most of 2023 which won't require congress. If all else fails, there has been talk among "moderate" Republicans (reported on CNN last night) that if the HFC absolutely insists on forcing the nation into default, they may have to take the extraordinary and rare step of signing a discharge petition to bypass the speaker's ability to set the floor schedule and agenda. If they did that, it would be for a big budget bill and it is very likely that a ukraine amendment of some sort would be voted on if needed. As for why oppose McCarthy? As stupid as it sounds its not likely some pro-Russian conspiracy or based on big ideological differences, it just simply seems to be personal. There's a small group of people who just hate him. (Gaetz, Boebert, etc)
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2023 13:51
|
|
|
Rigel posted:As for why oppose McCarthy? As stupid as it sounds its not likely some pro-Russian conspiracy or based on big ideological differences, it just simply seems to be personal. There's a small group of people who just hate him. (Gaetz, Boebert, etc) This is from the TVIV thread but it made me laugh so hard it's worth sharing here. BIG FLUFFY DOG posted:Yeah, if the last week has taught us anything its that McCarthy, Scalise and McHenry are loving terrible at vote counting and whipping. Pelosi would dig up your favorite fourth grade teacher to tell you she was disappointed in you for not voting the right way, McCarthy just begs you on his hands and knees. McCarthy reminded me of that physics professor that would teach students by doing all those crazy live demonstrations except instead of physics McCarthy spent the entire week showing everyone just how important strong leadership and organizational discipline is. The contrast between McCarthy and Jeffries (who seems to be doing a solid job of filling Pelosi's shoes so far) was incredibly stark. No one respects a weak leader. But the people who, due to circumstance, are compelled to follow a weak leader absolutely despise him. Because his weakness is their shame... quote:And as first reported by CNN, McCarthy told lawmakers he would support a threshold as low as five Republicans to trigger a vote on deposing the speaker, known as the “motion to vacate” the speaker’s chair – a major concession for him and one that moderates worry will be used as a constant cudgel over his head.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2023 14:38
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:Jeffries (who seems to be doing a solid job of filling Pelosi's shoes so far)
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2023 17:52
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:What led you to this assessment? What would differ between him, a mediocre replacement, and a bad replacement at this stage? If nothing else, the fact that for however many votes it was between leadership and adjournment, his entire conference consistently voted in lockstep, and there were always enough there to stop McCarthy from accidentally getting a majority.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2023 18:00
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:If nothing else, the fact that for however many votes it was between leadership and adjournment, his entire conference consistently voted in lockstep, and there were always enough there to stop McCarthy from accidentally getting a majority. While true, I do need to note that this sort of activity is much easier, both because the Dems are in the minority and because the Rs are making such obvious asses of themselves. At the moment, incentives are very strongly aligned for rank-and-file D representatives.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2023 19:42
|
|
|
I’m hopeful that this game they are playing bites the seditionists in the rear end. They want to hold up congress by demanding hard right cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, social security and the debt ceiling. Obviously none of that will pass the senate or be signed by Biden so they will spend the next two years looking weak and ineffective while the Dems can just point and go, “look at these assholes” come 24. Like, shutting down the government over the debt ceiling has backfired every time they’ve tried it so far and those other programs are far, far more popular.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2023 20:04
|
|
|
Murgos posted:I’m hopeful that this game they are playing bites the seditionists in the rear end. i mean everything the freedumb chuds want to do is super deeply unpopular with the adendum that these freaks are against sugar coating any of their weird bullshit so it pisses off normies too. If this bullshit was popular, they would have had a red wave this in 22.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2023 20:26
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:What led you to this assessment? What would differ between him, a mediocre replacement, and a bad replacement at this stage? There's an article floating around from a few months back when Schiff made a play for Speaker and everyone just kind of laughed at him. Jeffries has been prepping for this role for a while, he came in already having an extensive whip operation in place and sources seems to suggest that he understands organization discipline. Also, in addition to Alhazred's reply here's a good background article on what was happening with the Dems behind the scenes during the Speaker vote. https://twitter.com/DavidNir/status/1611237044889468928 With all that said, you're absolutely right that it's still early and Pelosi has some massive shoes to fill, so time will tell if Jeffries is truly up to it. However one thing is for sure: the Dems just had a front row seat to the flaming car wreck costs of group dysfunction. Hopefully they take it to heart.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2023 22:18
|
|
|
Purple dems deffo have an incentive to have helped KM for bipartisanship points so it isn't like Jefferies had nothing to do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2023 22:46
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:There's an article floating around from a few months back when Schiff made a play for Speaker and everyone just kind of laughed at him. Jeffries has been prepping for this role for a while, he came in already having an extensive whip operation in place and sources seems to suggest that he understands organization discipline. Strong Monty Python Life of Brian vibes there. That's funny.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2023 23:09
|
|
|
It appears Katie Porter is running for Feinstein's Senate seat in 2024, based on a fundraising email I just got from her. Which means Dems would likely lose her House seat, as she barely held it in 2022.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2023 17:01
|
|
|
VorpalBunny posted:It appears Katie Porter is running for Feinstein's Senate seat in 2024, based on a fundraising email I just got from her. A lot of people are gonna be running for Feinstein's seat
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2023 18:11
|
|
|
Newsom might be running as well. Will his governorship run out by then?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2023 18:21
|
|
|
Has she indicated she will be stepping down? I did a quick google and didn't see anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2023 18:28
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Has she indicated she will be stepping down? I did a quick google and didn't see anything. Nope. Not even a little bit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2023 18:32
|
|
|
Meatball posted:Newsom might be running as well. Will his governorship run out by then? Newsom definitely wants to be President, not Senator. His Gov term does run out in 26 though, so he's targeting '28.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2023 19:46
|
|
|
VorpalBunny posted:It appears Katie Porter is running for Feinstein's Senate seat in 2024, based on a fundraising email I just got from her. The mean expectation is that Democrats do better in 2024 than they did in 2022 which was a Democratic president midterm with low approval (also Newsom won by 19% at the top of the ticket, and in 2024 Biden will win California by ~30%)
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2023 20:09
|
|
|
JosefStalinator posted:Newsom definitely wants to be President, not Senator. There is zero reason for Newsom to hang around until 2028 if Biden isn't running in 2024. He won't give a single drat about when his governorship ends.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2023 21:48
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:There is zero reason for Newsom to hang around until 2028 if Biden isn't running in 2024. He won't give a single drat about when his governorship ends. Yeah but Biden, barring a new health scare, is running again, and I'll  to that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2023 10:25
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:There is zero reason for Newsom to hang around until 2028 if Biden isn't running in 2024. He won't give a single drat about when his governorship ends. Yeah, fortunately or unfortunately, Biden will probably be president until 2028. Newsom has been gleefully celebrating kamala's unpopularity I'm sure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2023 12:00
|
|
|
GoutPatrol posted:Yeah but Biden, barring a new health scare, is running again, and I'll I could’ve swore I saw an article a couple days ago that he was gearing up to run again. So it does seem very likely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2023 13:16
|
|
|
Bird in a Blender posted:I could’ve swore I saw an article a couple days ago that he was gearing up to run again. So it does seem very likely. If Biden is conscious he's running in 2024. My point was just that Newsom isn't going to wait for his governor's term to end to run if the field in 2024 is open.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2023 16:47
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:If Biden is conscious he's running in 2024. My point was just that Newsom isn't going to wait for his governor's term to end to run if the field in 2024 is open. I'm never voting for someone over 65 again. Too many people that don't understand modern tech in office.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2023 16:54
|
|
|
GoutPatrol posted:Yeah but Biden, barring a new health scare, is running again, and I'll He's gonna stay out or even resign beforehand because of the classified documents fiasco.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2023 17:14
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:He's gonna stay out or even resign beforehand because of the classified documents fiasco. is this a serious post or not?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2023 17:22
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:is this a serious post or not? I think that's what's going to happen. It's not factually comparable to Trump's alleged conduct, but the media coverage has made it comparable, and they're going to make the calculation that it's not worth having to litigate the differences throughout the 2024 campaign. Burned by emails once, twice shy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2023 17:30
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I think that's what's going to happen. It's not factually comparable to Trump's alleged conduct, but the media coverage has made it comparable, and they're going to make the calculation that it's not worth having to litigate the differences throughout the 2024 campaign. Burned by emails once, twice shy. This is loving bonkers. This is not taking Biden down. It barely registers with the ones who will matter, the democratic primary voters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2023 17:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 10:09 |
|
|
For Biden to resign would communicate that he did something so seriously wrong that he doesn't deserve the job, it would kill the Democrats for the next two election cycles. Totally ridiculous idea, Joe Biden will not resign "because of the classified documents fiasco."
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2023 17:50
|
|