ok so lawler was just on cnn bemoaning the non-cooperation by the dems. blah blah. but just for shits and giggs, let's game this out.
for the dems to "cooperate", they would need to find a moderate republican (?) and basically say "find four friends and let's do this, here's what we want..." the dems aren't ever going to "cooperate" by just saying fuck it and voting for mccarthy, jordan, or scalise, we already know this and i applaud their consistency on it.
if the above scenario played out, and they found that candidate, and made him speaker, would the republicans all just be cool with it? i don't feel like they would be, especially since deals would be in place with those 217 people and they would be cut out of the process that they currently have a literal majority over.
although it would be hilarious to just see those votes pass with 217 every time while the gop squirmed in their seats and shouted to fox news and started fundraising off of it and trashed the 5 republicans...which is all probably what they want anyway. and if they want something, by definition, we should not give it to them.
so i guess what i'm asking is, when the pubs ask for (or complain about) cooperation from the dems, what does that look like in their world? history has shown us these people cannot be trusted, so once again, i'm cool sticking with the plan. no reasonable person thinks the dems are at fault here, so yeah. fuck all that.