|
Eiba posted:Even if such a person existed, can you imagine how these people and their base would react to a Speaker installed with the help of Democrats? They're prepared to burn everything down in the name of ideological purity in the face of someone that has (apparently) conceded everything to them, and just doesn't feel pure enough to them (or at least he can be construed as impure to their base). The "They" that are prepared to burn everything down are around 20 hard line conservatives. Even Kevin flipped on MTG and kicked her off committees, so that gives a gauge on how well the party is hanging together. The republicans who flip and vote for someone acceptable to democrats would get to skip the line and get committee chairs and their favorite bills voted on, better office space, and probably (rightly) get praised as the adults in the room. Things that can happen: - Kevin makes a deal and ahshahahaha no, that won't happen - Hardline conservatives get someone they like in. These are they guys who shat in Kevin's cereal, he must have more than 5 friends who can kill any alternative candidate - ??? - Moderate republican with cross party support Big things holding this back are: It's dangerous just to talk about, and it would need to be folks who would not get easily primaried. For a deal like this (which would definitely be the best option for the democrats), and the dems could promise no serious contender next cycle.
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 04:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 16:57 |
|
|
so how long before the next debt ceiling crisis forces Biden to Mint the Coin?StumblyWumbly posted:
Oh that sounds ideal, let's make a list of those people . . . Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Jan 4, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 04:40
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:so how long before the next debt ceiling crisis forces Biden to Mint the Coin? Put Kevin McCarthy's face on the $1 Trillion Coin 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 04:44
|
|
|
nine-gear crow posted:Put Kevin McCarthy's face on the $1 Trillion Coin Oh not his face. He'd go on the reverse, not the obverse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 04:45
|
|
|
If this nonsense goes on long enough and the house can't do anything because it doesn't have a speaker then eventually the debt ceiling is going to be reached and then that's a massive issue right? I can actually see that become a factor in the speaker race. In fact I'm wondering if that's part of the plan for the MAGA wacko wing. Like something they can hold over the heads of the "moderate" Republicans AND Dems. Like "We are only putting up Gym Jordan for speaker. Vote for him, or the entire economy will be doomed". I mean I can totally see the MAGA folks doing that. They don't care what effect it will have on the economy .
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 04:45
|
|
|
What stops McCarthy from calling a voice vote and then claiming the Aye's have it? Does it have to be via button pushing or individually calling their votes?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 04:48
|
|
|
McCarthy has zero input on how the process runs, it’s managed solely by the parliamentarian and clerk of the house, and members are required to vote for a name tallied by the clerk/tellers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 04:52
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:What stops McCarthy from calling a voice vote and then claiming the Aye's have it? Does it have to be via button pushing or individually calling their votes? p sure part of any parliamentary procedure like this is members can request a tabulated vote and that voice votes are valid after unanimous consent of the result or somesuch
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 04:56
|
|
|
Anyway my prediction is this doesn't resolve any time soon. Everyone is saying that eventually there will be a compromise candidate but if that person existed they would be getting mentioned by name. There's no compromise candidate and the suicide caucus is going to drive the house off a cliff. My guess is eventually some people defect and join the democratic party and then we have speaker Jeffries. Sometime in March, maybe April.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 05:05
|
|
|
Some republican talking head was saying that the senate doesn’t sit til the 23rd, and indicated that was the deadline in their eyes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 05:20
|
|
|
quote:“At least when you had Mick Mulvaney and when you had guys like Jim Jordan, they had something that we’re asking for. Here, everything they’ve asked for has been given to them, pretty much,” Joyce said, taking an undisguised jab at House Freedom Caucus Chair Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.). “They just don’t want Kevin and it’s not right.” what level of dysfunctional is it when the McCarthy camp is being nostalgic for Mick Mulvaney
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 05:25
|
|
|
nine-gear crow posted:I'm not gonna hand anything to Matt Gaetz but it WAS amazingly presumptuous of K-Mack to move all his poo poo into the Speaker's office before they even held the vote. So gently caress yeah, make him crate it all up and move it back to his original tiny cubicle, just for the continued humiliation alone. Only Caesar may wear the Tyrian purple.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 05:26
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Anyway my prediction is this doesn't resolve any time soon. Everyone is saying that eventually there will be a compromise candidate but if that person existed they would be getting mentioned by name. There's no compromise candidate and the suicide caucus is going to drive the house off a cliff. We'll get a Republican who makes a deal with The/20 Democrats to overcome the suicide voter block way before people change parties or otherwise vote the Democrats into power.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 05:31
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:so how long before the next debt ceiling crisis forces Biden to Mint the Coin? That's why weirdos keep bringing up Fred Upton, because he was/is the personification of "generic republican" - but he is only being talked about because he just retired.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 05:43
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:He's an openly ambitious political weathervane who, by all accounts, will do drat near anything to gain power. He happily went MAGA went the Freedom Caucus was on the rise and Trump went up that escalator, but they're not convinced he'll be a reliable ally now that Trump's power has been shaken. And before Trump rose to power, he was heavily aligned with the old GOP leadership - including John Boehner, who was driven out of the speakership by the Freedom Caucus. That describes most Republicans at this point. Stefanik positioned herself as a moderate before Trump. These people don't really have a plan to govern anything, just an ambition to power worth any self-abasement to them. quote:Virtually no one who knows her believes she has any genuine attachment to Trump-style populism — unlike Mr. Trump’s earliest supporters, for example, or media figures like the Fox host Tucker Carlson. Indeed, over dozens of interviews, former aides, advisers and friends going back to Ms. Stefanik’s Harvard days struggled to identify any of her deeply held political beliefs at all. Most recalled, instead, her generic loyalty to the Republican Party, her intense competitiveness and her unerring ability to absorb what she thought people around her wanted and to reflect it back at them. Eager to advance, skilled at impressing more powerful figures with her intelligence and work ethic, she has spent years embedding herself wherever the action seems to be at the time. “She knows exactly what she’s signed up for,” said Kate Yearwood Young, a former friend from Harvard. “There was no radicalization.” I would almost applaud the move of cutting McCarthy's legs out if their motives made any sense. He's an idiot and bad politician even by Republican standards.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 05:49
|
|
|
It's fun being in uncharted waters, politically speaking. I like being able to check Twitter and not see a gazillion wonks explaining what's going to happen before it happens. Instead, everything is just up in the air and no one really knows what the final outcome looks like so they're retweeting mid-credibility gossip and anonymous sources and speculating about every single tea leaf from body language to choice of food.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 05:57
|
|
|
No one in the HFC is going to budge, and the "Nobody But Kevin" crowd isn't going to move. An unstoppable force meets an unmovable object in this scenario. The way I see it is this only ends with Kevin McCarthy seeing the writing on the wall and stepping aside for the good of the conference. So basically this will never end.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 06:12
|
|
|
And finally step 8, President Clinton https://twitter.com/sarahnferris/status/1610464347100168194?t=9tkHX84sYSVUC53_a8wC7g&s=19
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 06:21
|
|
|
If 20 members continue to vote against McCarthy and 10 members vote present (which lowers the threshold by five iirc) then Jeffries would still be in the lead and one vote short so I fail to see what that strategy accomplishes except for putting Jeffries within one vote of the speaker's chair, and I could absolutely see one R voting for him just to mess with the entire conference Would it be career suicide? Sure, but it'd also be absolutely hilarious to have the first female speaker succeeded by the first Black speaker who isn't even part of the majority party
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 06:38
|
|
|
slurm posted:So can they actually do anything without a speaker? Or can an obstructionist party with a slim majority use something like the Freedom caucus crowd as an excuse to keep the US without a Congress indefinitely, which with a Dem in the White House seems to their advantage Literally nothing else can be done until they have a Speaker. And since the GOP controls the House, there's not really any point in denying themselves the ability to use it. Even the Freedom Caucus wants the House operating so they can start up House investigations of everything the Dems have done in the last two years. That's ultimately what this is all about : positioning themselves to have maximum influence in the House so they can do whatever dumb bullshit they want.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 07:26
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Literally nothing else can be done until they have a Speaker. And since the GOP controls the House, there's not really any point in denying themselves the ability to use it. Even the Freedom Caucus wants the House operating so they can start up House investigations of everything the Dems have done in the last two years. I'm not American and only just skimmed the part of the constitution dealing with the House, but it doesn't seem like the requirement to have a Speaker comes from the constitution. The requirement seems to be part of the House's own rules, which can be changed by the majority. Is that a correct reading? Because if so, a majority then could indeed decide that they can hold a vote about the debt ceiling for example without having a Speaker.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 09:27
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:I'm not American and only just skimmed the part of the constitution dealing with the House, but it doesn't seem like the requirement to have a Speaker comes from the constitution.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 09:59
|
|
|
Seth Pecksniff posted:No one in the HFC is going to budge, and the "Nobody But Kevin" crowd isn't going to move. An unstoppable force meets an unmovable object in this scenario. The way I see it is this only ends with Kevin McCarthy seeing the writing on the wall and stepping aside for the good of the conference. The only actual member of the Nobody But Kevin crowd is Kevin McCarthy. Everyone else just finds him the most acceptable person who won't shoot them for making him/her Speaker. All the other people backing Kevin are either directly bribed by him or are down for just about anyone not part of the HFC.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 09:59
|
|
|
SubG posted:No, it does. Article One, Section 2, Clause 5. The exact scope of the position isn't defined, but its existence is. Sorry, I meant "the requirement to have a Speaker before any other business can be concluded" doesn't seem to be part of the constituion. This quote:The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. to me doesn't necessarily mean "and the House cannot vote on anything else unless it has elected a Speaker". Although I guess people could interpret the "shall chose" as implying the House needs to follow this command of the constitution before doing anything else.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 10:07
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:I'm not American and only just skimmed the part of the constitution dealing with the House, but it doesn't seem like the requirement to have a Speaker comes from the constitution. The requirement seems to be part of the House's own rules, which can be changed by the majority. Is that a correct reading? That section is literally less than a single page you may want to actually read it
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 10:33
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:Sorry, I meant "the requirement to have a Speaker before any other business can be concluded" doesn't seem to be part of the constituion. I believe you are right that the Constitution does not require the House to choose a Speaker as its first order of business (it only establishes the position of Speaker and charges the House with selecting one). However, the requirement to take care of the Speaker's chair first doesn't come from House rules either. It's part of US law and alteration would require the whole legislative process, which cannot happen right now because of that law. The relevant section states: quote:At the first session of Congress after every general election of Representatives, the oath of office shall be administered by any Member of the House of Representatives to the Speaker; and by the Speaker to all the Members and Delegates present, and to the Clerk, previous to entering on any other business; and to the Members and Delegates who afterward appear, previous to their taking their seats. Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/25 The quoted section is only marginally different from the wording in the first piece of legislation passed by the US Congress, way back in 1789: An Act to regulate the Time and Manner of administering certain Oaths. The text of the original 1789 act can (hopefully) be found here: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large/Volume_1/1st_Congress/1st_Session/Chapter_1 AtraMorS fucked around with this message at 11:30 on Jan 4, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 11:27
|
|
|
Gyges posted:We'll get a Republican who makes a deal with The/20 Democrats to overcome the suicide voter block way before people change parties or otherwise vote the Democrats into power. Making such a deal is, effectively, the same thing as up and changing parties to (D). They'd get primaries at the next election for betraying the faith and letting the evil democrats take over. I mean literally who you caucus with is effectively your party. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 11:47 on Jan 4, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 11:44
|
|
|
I love how he will never be rid of this even if he becomes speaker. This reminds me of the absolutely bugfuck choosing of presidential candidates before open popular vote primaries. Except that the only thing that is decided is how low Kevin McCarthy's self-worth will be at the end of this humilthon. Pretty sure he'll be smashing the mirrors in his home soon enough.
DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 12:12 on Jan 4, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 12:06
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:Although I guess people could interpret the "shall chose" as implying the House needs to follow this command of the constitution before doing anything else. And (as AtraMorS points out) it's spelled out in statute. The old House was dissolved at the end of the previous Congress. 2 USC 25 requires that the oath of office be administered to Members of the House by the Speaker before they are seated (and specifies that any member can administer the oath to the Speaker). So right now the US doesn't have a House of Representatives. It has a bunch of Representatives-elect who need to select a Speaker before they can be formally seated and have their first session.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 12:17
|
|
|
Hard to imagine this goes on much longer. At some point if McCarthy can’t find the votes, he’ll be pushed aside and Scalise or someone like him will be put in as a compromise. I’m guessing they’ll give Kevin tomorrow to try and work something out, and failing that the senior leadership will sit him down and have a quiet conversation with him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 12:26
|
|
|
Eiba posted:Even if such a person existed, can you imagine how these people and their base would react to a Speaker installed with the help of Democrats? It would need to be someone from an ostensibly blue state with a legislature and governor willing to help out the republicans when need be. Someone with broad spectrum appeal to the lgbt, Hispanic, Eastern European, and Jewish community. Someone willing to do whatever it takes to get the job done and not let reality stand in his way. Someone will to be the hero we need, not the hero we deserve.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 12:30
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Making such a deal is, effectively, the same thing as up and changing parties to (D). They'd get primaries at the next election for betraying the faith and letting the evil democrats take over. I'm not talking about caucusing with the Democrats, that would be the super unlikely step before Speaker Jeffries. I'm talking about a Republican Speaker with Republican control of the House, except they agree to not block specific bills like debt increases and budgets, perhaps a few constraints on the incoming Biden witch hunt, in exchange for the Democrats taking a long lunch next round of voting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 12:32
|
|
|
Gyges posted:I'm not talking about caucusing with the Democrats, that would be the super unlikely step before Speaker Jeffries. I'm talking about a Republican Speaker with Republican control of the House, except they agree to not block specific bills like debt increases and budgets, perhaps a few constraints on the incoming Biden witch hunt, in exchange for the Democrats taking a long lunch next round of voting. Right, but the suicide caucus -- and the median Trump supporter -- will view that as the same thing as switching parties. You don't win Republican primaries today by being less crazy than the next Republican. Even if some such compromise nominee existed, and they don't, they'd cease to be a viable compromise the minute freep.com or wherever started attacking them for betraying the Party.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 12:42
|
|
|
Harlock posted:And finally step 8, President Clinton I bet he wishes the reporters would leave, can’t have his crying face be shown on Tv.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 12:43
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Right, but the suicide caucus -- and the median Trump supporter -- will view that as the same thing as switching parties. They'll definitely try, but it's not going to be any more effective than labeling the person a RINO. Assuming that the Democrats decide to not show up for the vote, thus lowering the threashold, instead of actually voting for the guy. Though even if they do get Democratic votes it's going to be hard to spin it in 2 years if the Republicans are running things. We are after all still talking about a scenario where 200+ Republicans still also vote for the new guy not named Kevin.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 12:47
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:It would need to be someone from an ostensibly blue state with a legislature and governor willing to help out the republicans when need be. Speaker Santos should at least get more votes than Kevin
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 12:58
|
|
|
Add this to the compromise candidate fantasy league: https://twitter.com/ron_fournier/status/1610590582258139137?s=46&t=xsdYBETSE38c907NjSJcCA
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 13:19
|
|
|
How many votes did McCarthy fail yesterday? I thought they managed to squeeze in 3 before adjournment, but some places say McCarthy only failed twice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 13:30
|
|
|
Three votes, you're seeing headlines from the second run is all
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 13:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 16:57 |
|
|
AtraMorS posted:I'm not a lawyer but you got me curious. If I'm wrong about any of this, I'd be delighted to learn more. I am confused at to how that is constitutional, given that "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings", and this seems to give the Senate and the President veto on the House of Representatives' rules .
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2023 13:45
|
|
