Jump to content

the 2023 speaker of the house voting thread of implosion


henrygandorf

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Let's say this happens.  Aside from being massively embarrassing for the Rs, what would this actually do?  

Depends what they deal with. Shared power, heads of some committees, promise not to impeach Biden, neuter the freedom caucus, it’s all on the table. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

"if Trump wants to make America great again, then when do you think America stopped being great?" 

Oh this is easy. America was great before them greasy longhair hippy types started askin questions. Westerns were literally black and white. There'd be one or two good Indians, for nuance, see, and they'd help the cowboys shoot the rest. You could understand what the singer was saying, not like this hippety-hop bull-hockey. You didn't need a healthcare plan because Doc Sanders would come over at 3 AM and you could pay him with a peck of crabapples. And the Colts were in Baltimore. THEY HADN'T LEFT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 4
  • Rage+1 1
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Let's say this happens.  Aside from being massively embarrassing for the Rs, what would this actually do?  

Broadly speaking, the Speaker can determine what bills can make it to the floor for a vote.  But obviously, everything is negotiable, and Jeffries would have to cede some control over floor management to any Republicans who would vote for him.

So, I don't know.  And really, nobody does.  It's never been done before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Jeffries idea is so incredibly far fetched.  It reminds of the delusions from 2017 to attempt to get a few GOP senators to caucus with the Democrats. 

The democrats are correctly going to continue to push for this idea but it’s all just a backhanded way to highlight the GOP’s incompetence.  

To put it another way, the Republicans would first try to secede from the Union before elevating a Democrat to Speaker of the House.  

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The Jeffries idea is so incredibly far fetched.  It reminds of the delusions from 2017 to attempt to get a few GOP senators to caucus with the Democrats. 

The democrats are correctly going to continue to push for this idea but it’s all just a backhanded way to highlight the GOP’s incompetence.  

To put it another way, the Republicans would first try to secede from the Union before elevating a Democrat to Speaker of the House.  

The main reason here is that they never have had, nor will ever have, any intentions of actually governing. They are not serious people. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The Jeffries idea is so incredibly far fetched.  It reminds of the delusions from 2017 to attempt to get a few GOP senators to caucus with the Democrats. 

The democrats are correctly going to continue to push for this idea but it’s all just a backhanded way to highlight the GOP’s incompetence.  

To put it another way, the Republicans would first try to secede from the Union before elevating a Democrat to Speaker of the House.  

You talk as though the GQP is a party, and it's just not.  At this point, it is a non-functioning coalition of about four different parties.  But in no way does it resemble an actual political party right now.

But I agree that electing Hakeem Jeffries is incredibly far-fetched.  The only thing that is even more unlikely is any Republican getting 217 votes.

And if no Republican can get to 217 votes, then we're going to have a governmental shutdown in a month.  And what do the "Republicans"--put in scare quotes, because I don't concede that there is a such thing as a "Republican" anymore--do at that point?  I mean, one of those parties within their nonfunctioning coalition will be happy to watch it burn.  But another of those parties is going to be very worried about its own electoral prospects in 2024.  How long are they going to let a governmental shutdown go on because of the likes of Matt Gaetz?

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a "kill two birds with one stone" type of fella.  

If I'm Jeffries/Dem Leadership, "We'll form a coalition and vote somebody practical in with you to save face.  Maybe work out some joint co-chairs on certain committees.  But here's the key touchpoint.  We give you/House Judiciary TWO WEEKS! to produce unequivocal evidence against Joe Biden and bring it to a floor vote open to the public to issue official Articles of Impeachment.  Otherwise, you can still go on FoxNews and talk about Impeaching Biden!, but it's dead in committee after that.  But after two years and two Presidents, we'd say 'Two Weeks' is more than fair.  After that, we get on to the people's business.  And you get a Speaker again."  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

The main reason here is that they never have had, nor will ever have, any intentions of actually governing. They are not serious people. 

Yeah, the fact that Mace and others are fundraising off of this speaks volumes.  If the cash is flowing into the coffers, they have no reason to elect a speaker.

2 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

And if no Republican can get to 217 votes, then we're going to have a governmental shutdown in a month.  And what do the "Republicans"--put in scare quotes, because I don't concede that there is a such thing as a "Republican" anymore--do at that point?  I mean, one of those parties within their nonfunctioning coalition will be happy to watch it burn.  But another of those parties is going to be very worried about its own electoral prospects in 2024.  How long are they going to let a governmental shutdown go on because of the likes of Matt Gaetz?

Yeah, if this were January of 2023 instead of October, I'd say more of the Republicans might try to keep the government shutdown in some manner, or at least not try to do much.

But we are not too far away from primary season, and a year out from elections, and they're tripping all over themselves completely in public, blaming fellow Republicans in public, calling each other names in public.  And we've just had a massive attack on Israel by what apparently is the next version of ISIS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The democrats are correctly going to continue to push for this idea but it’s all just a backhanded way to highlight the GOP’s incompetence.  

 

This, except I'd say most of the very online Dems are pushing it, but it doesn't seem to be getting that much traction (in public or in interviews) with actual House Dems outside of being snarky and telling the never-Jordans "you can vote for Jeffries, you know."

Realistically, the compromise speaker with Dem concessions to vote present to lower the threshold is what is being touted in public, because, House Dems continually just saying "okay, vote for Jeffries then" means you're just pushing those never-Jordans further from working with the Dems on a speaker.  When your opposition are totally fucking toddlers that are beholden to a massive baby back bitch, you tread lightly. 

It's fun to speculate and laugh at the GOP about a potential Speaker Jeffries emerging from a post-Red Wedding GOP House majority prior to January 2025, but in the end, it's just funny chatter to make fun of the House GOP for being complete clowns. 

To that point, you have at least 3 very safe district Republicans in Mike Rogers, Steve Womack and Greg Murphy, who are not in danger of losing in 2024, joining the chorus of vulnerable Republicans, in saying "we will need the Dems to help us elect a compromise speaker" - that speaks volume.  It's not just some of the 19 Biden-district Republicans but some in R+10 or more districts. 

Edited by Js1
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

The main reason here is that they never have had, nor will ever have, any intentions of actually governing. They are not serious people. 

Leadership and accountability isn’t in their skill set anymore.  These are mostly career performance artists performing for an audience that has been conditioned to despise government in general. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

You talk as though the GQP is a party, and it's just not.  At this point, it is a non-functioning coalition of about four different parties.  But in no way does it resemble an actual political party right now.

The current Republican Party’s guiding and foundational ideology is their opposition to democrats, which isn’t really an ideology but more of an opposition to one.  Yes, they are internally divided on issues like election denying and Trump fealty but their collective opposition to democrats is the only thing holding the R party together.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The current Republican Party’s guiding and foundational ideology is their opposition to democrats, which isn’t really an ideology but more of an opposition to one.  Yes, they are internally divided on issues like election denying and Trump fealty but their collective opposition to democrats is the only thing holding the R party together.

Right.  And that is not a "political party" as that term has ever been understood in political science.

I don't really know what it is, beyond a complete and total clusterfuck.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, GopherRock said:

Probably these:

- Call off impeachment inquiry

- Make the motion to vacate out of order

-50/50 committee splits with Jeffries naming the chair of Rules and Judiciary

- Deal for large Ukraine and Israel support package

- No threat of shutdown

Add killing the Hastert rule to this and I'm in. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I’m Jeffries or his surrogate, here is the deal I’m offering- we will deliver whatever combination of present and aye votes it takes to elect a speaker, and for the optics also promise to include enough Nay votes to ensure that more Republicans vote for the speaker than Democrats. In return we get:

1) power sharing that includes equal numbers on judiciary, ag and oversight, and chairs of 1/3 of key committees, including W&M

2) elimination of the Hastert rule

3) higher threshold for MTV

4) Michael McCaul or Tom Emmer is the speaker

If these are not acceptable we put Henry Cuellar forward in nomination. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

Voting for Jordan is just enabling the group (Freedom Caucus) who blew it all up to start. Hell I’d say the only reason Jordan wasn’t one of the 8 was because he too much values his chairmanship too much and didn’t want someone to come in and take it from him in retaliation

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I don’t think Jeffries is aiming for speaker I think it’s hoping for concessions and as moderate a republican as they can find for speaker.

Yeah, as long as the Republicans keep fucking up like this, and so publicly, it's doing nothing but helping them the Dems for next year.

And Jordan won't get it - if he was, he'd already have had it in the bag. He'll do nothing but make it harder for Republicans in swing districts next year.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The current Republican Party’s guiding and foundational ideology is their opposition to democrats, which isn’t really an ideology but more of an opposition to one.  Yes, they are internally divided on issues like election denying and Trump fealty but their collective opposition to democrats is the only thing holding the R party together.

That's like saying "States' Rights" instead of Pro-slavery or

Family values instead of "anti-LGTBQ" or

Pro gun instead of anti-school safety

No compromise instead of Fascist

Anti-woke instead of Racist

 

All the other side of the same coin.

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

If I’m Jeffries or his surrogate, here is the deal I’m offering- we will deliver whatever combination of present and aye votes it takes to elect a speaker, and for the optics also promise to include enough Nay votes to ensure that more Republicans vote for the speaker than Democrats. In return we get:

1) power sharing that includes equal numbers on judiciary, ag and oversight, and chairs of 1/3 of key committees, including W&M

2) elimination of the Hastert rule

3) higher threshold for MTV

4) Michael McCaul or Tom Emmer is the speaker

If these are not acceptable we put Henry Cuellar forward in nomination. 

I'm all for this. However, what's to stop them from going back on their word once they get their speaker and playing the he said she said game? 

I don't trust them more than I do a 3 month old lab and their backers aren't going to believe what Dems claim the deal was anyways. They garner more support arguing with Dems than they do making deals with them - what's their incentive to keep their word?

Dumb question potentially - are there safeguards in place to ensure they hold true to their word?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Surly Bevo said:


So he and Barry Switzer have something in common.

i get them all confused.. another GOP House member trying to get a gun on a plane -  Derrick Van Orden (R) Wisc.

https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-business-wisconsin-iowa-cedar-rapids-a044454dd60bbb9e016eca678448ad1c

jeez, how many are there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dieucla98 said:

I'm all for this. However, what's to stop them from going back on their word once they get their speaker and playing the he said she said game? 

I don't trust them more than I do a 3 month old lab and their backers aren't going to believe what Dems claim the deal was anyways. They garner more support arguing with Dems than they do making deals with them - what's their incentive to keep their word?

Dumb question potentially - are there safeguards in place to ensure they hold true to their word?

It has to be part of the new rules package or else Dems would vote it down

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...