Jump to content

the 2023 speaker of the house voting thread of implosion

henrygandorf

By henrygandorf
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 7.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Beau Vine
Beau Vine
956 Worldwide
956 Worldwide
henrygandorf
henrygandorf

jim got all dressed up for his big day...

Posted Images

C-Man

C-Man 27052

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

You're apparently watching the wrong channels, because I've heard both Fox and CNN mention it.  Jake Tapper was just talking about it 3 minutes ago.

Yeah, I heard it right when you did and made post right above you, probably at the same time.

 

22 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

they would have to propose that and then vote for it and well, you've seen how that goes.

Well, there might be 413 reps who are fucking beaten down by the 20 Never-McCarthy voters who might go along with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hermanator

Hermanator 6944

Posted
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

 

The insurrectionist one isn't legit. The guy just misspoke and caught himself immediately. I don't like those fucks but that wasn't anything. 

Don Bacon is saying what all of our hopes should be. That having 20 members of the House being complete obstructionist to both parties will force them to have to work together to make the 20 irrelevant. If they would just cut the histrionics and do that from the start every time we might slow down our descent into failure. That's the most intelligent thing ever said on Fox News

Edited by Hermanator
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Valmy77

Valmy77 13094

Posted
Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, The Royal We said:

I read Amash's tweetstorm the other day and he was doing okay until he got to the part where he praised a congressman who was an active participant in J6 and then called Cheney a liberal.  Because obviously her participation in the J6 hearings has a much larger bearing on where she sits on the political spectrum than her actual voting record as a member of congress.  

GTFOHWTMFBS

He called her a Democrat in GOP clothing which is frustratingly partisan for a guy who has always tried to not be partisan but to be about principles and policies. Unless endorsing violent coups is his principle here.

Edit: Generally I always liked and agreed with Amash on how the House is managed and how more opportunities need to be given to members to represent their districts and not just their party. So kind of weird to see him hammering Liz for not being loyal to a party (for refusing to cover up an attempt to destroy the Constitution at that) that he himself left.

6 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

I hate the theater of these nomination speeches, just say the name of the nominee and sit the fuck down.  You're not swaying any votes, it's just a show.

It's tradition!

Edited by Valmy77
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bullneck

Bullneck 18987

Posted
Posted
53 minutes ago, C-Man said:

The only place I've heard about a plurality vote is on this thread. I've not heard it discussed by any of the networks covering this and I've had it on TV pretty much all day this week. Why isn't getting brought up by anybody else?

The NYT had an article on it a couple of weeks ago, well before this all fell into the morass.  

I think the media doesn't want to suggest an "outsider" speaker since it would sound like a dumb idea if somehow McCarthy gets this all worked out (which he won't).  Rather than look ahead they are adopting the "cross that bridge when we get to it" strategy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Valmy77

Valmy77 13094

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

Don Bacon is saying what all of our hopes should be. That having 20 members of the House being complete obstructionist to both parties will force them to have to work together to make the 20 irrelevant. If they would just cut the histrionics and do that from the start every time we might slow down our descent into failure. That's the most intelligent thing ever said on Fox News

The problem with that is, without those 20, the Democrats would be the majority in a governing coalition of 415. I don't think that scenario is acceptable to Republicans.

And it would lead to a total meltdown of the Republicans as a party. Career suicide for many of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pescado_Rojo

Pescado_Rojo 19331

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Valmy77 said:

The problem with that is, without those 20, the Democrats would be the majority in a governing coalition of 415. I don't think that scenario is acceptable to Republicans.

And it would lead to a total meltdown of the Republicans as a party. Career suicide for many of them.

giphy.gif

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85109

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

The NYT had an article on it a couple of weeks ago, well before this all fell into the morass.  

I think the media doesn't want to suggest an "outsider" speaker since it would sound like a dumb idea if somehow McCarthy gets this all worked out (which he won't).  Rather than look ahead they are adopting the "cross that bridge when we get to it" strategy.

I think (and @Bateshorn can confirm) that going down the plurality road is a bad idea, because you still need a majority to pass the rules package for the 2023-2024 Congress, and it's probably better for McCarthy/the GOP to get someone to 218 votes, all of whom will then vote for the rules package, theoretically. 

Otherwise, you have a Speaker and no rules. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29176

Posted
  • Author
Posted
39 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Kinsinger says he just got an email from a friend who just got a fundraising email from Andy Biggs bragging about blocking McCarthy.

i believe it was scott jennings who said it on cnn, but i'm sure plenty of people got that email.

this is how it works now.  you make a spectacle, you go on tv, you fundraise.  they never wanted to govern, they never wanted to help the american people.  they're doing what they were elected to do.  they are who we thought they were.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26279

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I think (and @Bateshorn can confirm) that going down the plurality road is a bad idea, because you still need a majority to pass the rules package for the 2023-2024 Congress, and it's probably better for McCarthy/the GOP to get someone to 218 votes, all of whom will then vote for the rules package, theoretically. 

Otherwise, you have a Speaker and no rules. 

I don't think that's true, because A vote on a rules package is up or down, and the present option is like a split vote, it just lowers the denominator of a majority. The problem McCarthy is having is named votes for other candidates. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85109

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

It really does seem strange that step 1 isn’t swear them all in, and then move forward with picking leadership and rules. 
 

Is there an obvious reason for doing it this way?

Someone has to swear them in though.  And the Speaker is in charge of the House - it's not like the Senate, where the VP is in charge and doesn't have to be re-elected as the President of the Senate each term. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Valmy77

Valmy77 13094

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i believe it was scott jennings who said it on cnn, but i'm sure plenty of people got that email.

this is how it works now.  you make a spectacle, you go on tv, you fundraise.  they never wanted to govern, they never wanted to help the american people.  they're doing what they were elected to do.  they are who we thought they were.

They are becoming famous political celebrities and using that to cash in. They are just imitating our former President.

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

elfenix 34171

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Js1 said:

Someone has to swear them in though.  And the Speaker is in charge of the House - it's not like the Senate, where the VP is in charge and doesn't have to be re-elected as the President of the Senate each term. 

people who haven't been sworn in have power to elect a speaker to swear them in

seems like there's some boot strapping going on

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

C-Man 27052

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

The NYT had an article on it a couple of weeks ago, well before this all fell into the morass.  

I think the media doesn't want to suggest an "outsider" speaker since it would sound like a dumb idea if somehow McCarthy gets this all worked out (which he won't).  Rather than look ahead they are adopting the "cross that bridge when we get to it" strategy.

Do they only need a majority vote to move to a plurality situation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29399

Posted
Posted

I was just checking some bipartisanship scoresheet for House members from the last congress, and Brian Fitzpatrick-PA looks like he would be a Republican that could pull Democratic votes. I didn't anything about him until reading his wiki page, and he seems like he'd work from my liberal/progressive standpoint. He's probably too liberal for the majority of Republicans, but it's still interesting to work down the left hand column rankings to see who all fit the "bipartisan" bill.

https://www.thelugarcenter.org/assets/htmldocuments/117_BPI_House.pdf

 

Quote

 

About the rankings:

The Bipartisan Index measures how often a member of Congress introduces bills that attract co-sponsors from the other party, and how often they in turn co-sponsor a bill introduced from across the aisle. The rankings and scores issued today cover legislative activity for 2021, the first year of the Biden presidency, and the first time since 2010 that Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.

*****

The Bipartisan Index is based on a formula applied uniformly to all members that considers both the absolute numbers of bipartisan bills sponsored and co-sponsored and the percentage of such bills in a member’s portfolio. It excludes non-binding resolutions and ceremonial bills. It also includes a metric that gives members credit for the number of bipartisan co-sponsors on their sponsored bills. The Index uses a historical standard based on 29 years of data to compare current members to historical averages. No subjective judgments are made about individual members or bills.

https://mccourt.georgetown.edu/news/bipartisan-index-rankings-117th-congress/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26279

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Do they only need a majority vote to move to a plurality situation?

Yep

2 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

This SIM is so god damn fucked.  We are regularly seeing Boebert and MTG get live interview time on MSlibtard and CuckNN?  What is this world coming to?  

Boebert does not "beholdent" to anyone

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChiTownDoc

ChiTownDoc 21101

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

2/3 of 2/3 after cloture, but only if Boebert can see the shadow of her tits on the 2nd of February. 

They should have told her dumbass that 90% x 90% is 100% so she can only buttfuck the vote once, then needs to get in line.  Odds of that working are about 100%.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bateshorn

Bateshorn 9899

Posted
Posted
41 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I think (and @Bateshorn can confirm) that going down the plurality road is a bad idea, because you still need a majority to pass the rules package for the 2023-2024 Congress, and it's probably better for McCarthy/the GOP to get someone to 218 votes, all of whom will then vote for the rules package, theoretically. 

Otherwise, you have a Speaker and no rules. 

Este

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gengs1

Gengs1 2583

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

I would hope the democrats have given the pubs a list of republican speakers they would vote for. That would be a solid win for the Dems. 

Nah, they need also to keep the crazies from committee seats, only way this will work.

Kevin made promises that he cannot keep since the loons want them so he is stuck and needs to Give up more 

Edited by Gengs1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...