the 2023 speaker of the house voting thread of implosion

[Homercles 10206]

I joined this weird clan of traveling misfits, oozing from one board to another, back in 2011.  

What I recall was the CR was dominated by a handful of guys like Swam who just constantly ragged on Obama, Hilary, and reveled in Facebook memes about ACA/Obamaphones/tan suits/etc.  At the time I just ignored it because the old rep system meant one misstep would crater your newbie account quickly.  

Now you could reasonably argue that things have swung the other way, however I’d counter that there have been far more real world impacts under Trump…rise of the alt right storming the Capitol, women losing right to choose, misinformation killing people from Covid, attacks against trans/gay/minorities, etc…and thus actually worthy of derision vs 2011 bitching about drone strikes or the deficit or feet on the Resolute desk.  

So yeah, the CR has changed…for the better if you ask me. 

Edited October 5, 2023 by Homercles

[immamac 44413]

There has absolutely been a mass exodus of conservative posters from the board not just cloak room. When COVID happened and Tom Herman’s last season was in full swing it got really bad. People forgot how to act and started going all conspiracy theory and everything got politicized. I considered shutting down the board at one point because it was just a place that was more bad than good. 
 

we came out of that with posters that were intellectually immune to conspiracy adjacent shit and had seen through the republican facade held for decades. Now we have obviously broken brained idiots who jump through hoops to defend voting R and a bunch of people who are disenfranchised by both parties and only a few true D voters who like the R voters jump through hoops for their candidates/representative/elected officials. 
 

the lions share of the board is now registered independent, with a slight conservative lean, which surprise surprise is just like Texans generally. 

[The Original Greaser Bob 2901]

28 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

My guess is that GOP has to settle on a horrible speaker like Jordan. Then after a few months of tragic consequences they will kick him out and agree on someone more moderate horrible perhaps someone none of us know by sight. 

 

[Captainant 28594]

10 minutes ago, immamac said:

There has absolutely been a mass exodus of conservative posters from the board not just cloak room. When COVID happened and Tom Herman’s last season was in full swing it got really bad. People forgot how to act and started going all conspiracy theory and everything got politicized. I considered shutting down the board at one point because it was just a place that was more bad than good. 

That summer -> fall of 2020 was fucking insane. There were protests being accelerated into riots by white supremacists, which were gleefully used by the ultraMAGAfascists of the board to cheer on militant police action, usually against peaceful protesters that would be broadbrushed as """rioters""" by people who would later deny the election results. Surly was a reflection of that discordant and bifurcated reality. And unfortunately due to moderation style, those posts and user histories are deleted and gone so there's not really a paper trail to point back to and reflect on.

15 minutes ago, immamac said:

we came out of that with posters that were intellectually immune to conspiracy adjacent shit and had seen through the republican facade held for decades. Now we have obviously broken brained idiots who jump through hoops to defend voting R and a bunch of people who are disenfranchised by both parties and only a few true D voters who like the R voters jump through hoops for their candidates/representative/elected officials. 

We still have that hard-core of ultraMAGAs that repeat culture war grievances across the board and act like they don't like trump, but happily vote for the trumpiest downballot candidates they can and repeat fox news talking points everywhere but the CR as if they're not politically driven

[Aqua Buddha 14809]

31 minutes ago, immamac said:

There has absolutely been a mass exodus of conservative posters from the board not just cloak room. When COVID happened and Tom Herman’s last season was in full swing it got really bad. People forgot how to act and started going all conspiracy theory and everything got politicized. I considered shutting down the board at one point because it was just a place that was more bad than good. 
 

we came out of that with posters that were intellectually immune to conspiracy adjacent shit and had seen through the republican facade held for decades. Now we have obviously broken brained idiots who jump through hoops to defend voting R and a bunch of people who are disenfranchised by both parties and only a few true D voters who like the R voters jump through hoops for their candidates/representative/elected officials. 
 

the lions share of the board is now registered independent, with a slight conservative lean, which surprise surprise is just like Texans generally. 

[The Dog 44865]

[Guest]

Here, if anyone wishes there was more of a hard-right viewpoint:

https://www.hornfans.com/forums/westmall/

[27-25 2087]

2 hours ago, bernorange said:

A lot of people judge a President by how the economy fared during their tenure even though Presidents have very little to do with it.  Carter's term coincided with the fallout from Bretton Woods.  It was an economic situation decades in the making.  The great economic malaise sucked ass and few peeps were happy living through it.   On foreign policy - where Presidents actually have influence - Carter tried to liberalize the USA's influence (emphasizing human rights and such) and made some progress until the Iranian hostage crisis near the end of his term.  That was his undoing as Reagan talked tough and Iran actually feared him.

Reagan was the beneficiary of the Volker shock which ended the inflation and economic malaise that dominated the 70s.  He was also really good at delivering speeches.  He was charismatic and life was good while he presided.  The wall also came down shortly after his tenure in part due to the deficit spending on the military that the Soviets couldn't match. 

They both did some good things, but the legacy of their actual accomplishments is largely overshadowed by the economic conditions that prevailed during their tenures.  Conditions that were created/governed by monetary policy (ie. the Federal Reserve) more than their fiscal policies.

Reagan gets credit for the economic recovery that followed Paul Volcker's steps to curb inflation.  Who nominated Volcker as chairman of the Fed?  Jimmy Carter.  Life isn't fair and politics even less so.

[The Royal We 3100]

4 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

Here, if anyone wishes there was more of a hard-right viewpoint:

https://www.hornfans.com/forums/westmall/

Jesus. It's the same 2 or 3 moonbats talking back and forth about alt right conspiracy theories. Jan 6 was all a false flag opp spearheaded by the FBI... I'm ready for the Kool-Aid to be passed around to these asshats.

[immamac 44413]

27 minutes ago, Captainant said:

That summer -> fall of 2020 was fucking insane. There were protests being accelerated into riots by white supremacists, which were gleefully used by the ultraMAGAfascists of the board to cheer on militant police action, usually against peaceful protesters that would be broadbrushed as """rioters""" by people who would later deny the election results. Surly was a reflection of that discordant and bifurcated reality. And unfortunately due to moderation style, those posts and user histories are deleted and gone so there's not really a paper trail to point back to and reflect on.

We still have that hard-core of ultraMAGAs that repeat culture war grievances across the board and act like they don't like trump, but happily vote for the trumpiest downballot candidates they can and repeat fox news talking points everywhere but the CR as if they're not politically driven

We don't want that shit here it's less about moderation style and more that it didn't fucking belong anywhere on the internet let alone here. And fuck those people. 

[The Dog 44865]

 

[Js1 87281]

1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

My guess is that GOP has to settle on a horrible speaker like Jordan. Then after a few months of tragic consequences they will kick him out and agree on someone more moderate perhaps someone none of us know by sight. 

It does not appear at this time, based on hearing from GOP members, that either Scalise or Jordan is anywhere close to 218. It’s going to be another drawn out battle 

[The Dog 44865]

y'all know what to do:

poll closes at 2pm central.

current status:

Edited October 5, 2023 by The Dog

[Anastasis 23717]

1 hour ago, immamac said:

People forgot how to act and started going all conspiracy theory and everything got politicized.

That happened long before COVID. 

[Francisco 2.0 32609]

 

 

 

[Brisketexan 107007]

15 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

 

And.....now we're fully in the phase of the cycle where "the Great Spiritual Leader has strayed from the vision of the Great Spiritual Leader, and must be cast out."  When we're at a point where Trump isn't Trumpy enough....that's interesting.  Also, entirely predictable, as it is a common phase of all political cult movements.  

We're getting closer to the "everything falls apart and is set on fire" chapter of the Republic.  Swell.

[The Dog 44865]

18 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

 

you know "Trump as Speaker" is DOA when a guy from an R+19 district says "hell naw."

[Brisketexan 107007]

3 minutes ago, The Dog said:

you know "Trump as Speaker" is DOA when a guy from an R+19 district says "hell naw."

.....because Trump isn't MAGA-crazy enough.  That part is really, really important.

So, as many people hoped, the GQP is moving on from Trump.....by leaving him behind to head to even more psychotic destinations.

Remember Brisket's Rules of the GQP:

1) There is no bottom.

2) It only gets worse.

['stache 22146]

Oh his phone will be off the hook today and by 5:00 pm he’ll be groveling that he was misunderstood and thinks trump is the chosen one for all important positions.

Edited October 5, 2023 by 'stache

[TwiceHorn 32103]

14 hours ago, Born to Run said:

They aren't fiscally conservative except to cut taxes to the wealthy.

Cutting taxes without cutting spending concomitantly is not fiscally conservative.  It's irresponsible.

[TexasEd 8268]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Cutting taxes without cutting spending concomitantly is not fiscally conservative.  It's irresponsible.

It's grift and kickbacks

[wildcat09 29600]

3 hours ago, bernorange said:

A lot of people judge a President by how the economy fared during their tenure even though Presidents have very little to do with it.  Carter's term coincided with the fallout from Bretton Woods.  It was an economic situation decades in the making.  The great economic malaise sucked ass and few peeps were happy living through it.   On foreign policy - where Presidents actually have influence - Carter tried to liberalize the USA's influence (emphasizing human rights and such) and made some progress until the Iranian hostage crisis near the end of his term.  That was his undoing as Reagan talked tough and Iran actually feared him.

Reagan was the beneficiary of the Volker shock which ended the inflation and economic malaise that dominated the 70s.  He was also really good at delivering speeches.  He was charismatic and life was good while he presided.  The wall also came down shortly after his tenure in part due to the deficit spending on the military that the Soviets couldn't match. 

They both did some good things, but the legacy of their actual accomplishments is largely overshadowed by the economic conditions that prevailed during their tenures.  Conditions that were created/governed by monetary policy (ie. the Federal Reserve) more than their fiscal policies.

If by "feared him" you mean "was happy to negotiate with his campaign for his political benefit and buy arms from his administration," sure.

[Francisco 2.0 32609]

20 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Cutting taxes without cutting spending concomitantly is not fiscally conservative.  It's irresponsible.

 

Well, yes. It's not a bug; it's a feature since, oh, 1981 or so.

 

 

Edited October 5, 2023 by Francisco 2.0

[Bozo_Casanova 26905]

44 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Cutting taxes without cutting spending concomitantly is not fiscally conservative.  It's irresponsible.

Until you realize that it's a wealth transfer, then it makes sense. 

[Aqua Buddha 14809]

2 hours ago, 27-25 said:

Reagan gets credit for the economic recovery that followed Paul Volcker's steps to curb inflation.  Who nominated Volcker as chairman of the Fed?  Jimmy Carter.  Life isn't fair and politics even less so.

An underrated angle to Reagan's presidency was he hit the meaty part of the curve in relation to demographics.  The Boomers were a huge generation at that point in American in history and starting around 1980, they were hitting their peak spending years.  The oldest Boomers were 35 in 1980 and all of them would go on to buy houses, cars, have kids, whatever.  All Reagan did was lower taxes and let them spend their money.  

['stache 22146]

Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

Until you realize that it's a wealth transfer, then it makes sense. 

And Bob the busdriver who hates gays thinks the tax cuts are to his benefit. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26905]

7 minutes ago, 'stache said:

And Bob the busdriver who hates gays thinks the tax cuts are to his benefit. 

They are! He gives himself and his descendants to tenant fealty, and in exchange they cancel Drag Queen Story hour. 

Edited October 5, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[Rimbo 27087]

4 hours ago, G650 said:

This is really the long and short of it. Anyone who believes in empiricism will follow where it leads. Most of my views haven't really changed, but my thought on how best to achieve the goals has as the data has borne out.

Super important caveat here.

Nearly everyone believes that they allow the evidence to inform their opinions.

Almost no one ever does.

The only time we allow evidence to possibly inform our opinions is when we are switching our tribal association, or when there is a conflict within the tribe. (For example, people generally came around on gay marriage because nearly everyone knows, and cares about, someone who is gay.)

That's what makes what's going on in the GOP now so interesting to watch. The conflict within the tribe is going to cause people to review their beliefs.

[Brisketexan 107007]

2 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Super important caveat here.

Nearly everyone believes that they allow the evidence to inform their opinions.

Almost no one ever does.

The only time we allow evidence to possibly inform our opinions is when we are switching our tribal association, or when there is a conflict within the tribe. (For example, people generally came around on gay marriage because nearly everyone knows, and cares about, someone who is gay.)

That's what makes what's going on in the GOP now so interesting to watch. The conflict within the tribe is going to cause people to review their beliefs.

True.  But the bolded is depressing.  Because what do you think is more likely: 1) the review of said beliefs causes them to take a more rational, empathetic view of things, or 2) the review of said beliefs leads them to conclude that they don't hate ENOUGH/have ENOUGH anger at everyone who isn't like them?

I know where I'm putting my money.

1) There is no bottom.

2) It only gets worse.

[Neonmoon 38130]

12 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

An underrated angle to Reagan's presidency was he hit the meaty part of the curve in relation to demographics.  The Boomers were a huge generation at that point in American in history and starting around 1980, they were hitting their peak spending years.  The oldest Boomers were 35 in 1980 and all of them would go on to buy houses, cars, have kids, whatever.  All Reagan did was lower taxes and let them spend their money.  

God dammit. 

In no fucking way, did lowering taxes trickle down to the common man who spent it, and the economy boomed. Stop believing this stupid horseshit. 

GDP was the same during Reagan's first term as Carter's term. The economy got better because Volker conquered inflation, increasing the purchasing power of people's money, and Reagan deficit spent a shit ton of the military. It was wasn't the common man getting a few more bucks in his pocket and buying a new bass boat. 

[RDCanecutter 26917]

My early Republican bent was brief but vivid. It was the late 70s. (Cue up "My Sharona" followed by a Franklin Mint commercial.) There were two kinds of Democrats-- locals and Yankees. I shot down the idea of working as an intern for my cousin the local Dem House Rep (later Republican Senator) because my brief exposure to University of Alabama Fratboy culture had been enough.

So out of the woodwork my Mom's HS friend reappears in our lives. I'll call him Lizard Person. Mr. Person, as a college student, had been kicked out of 1950s U of Alabama for acting too racist. Read that twice. He is said to have finished up his degree at Baylor. and sometime later became a lawyer. Thinking back, he had the mannerisms of a closeted lawyer, but at the time he just seemed smarmy.

Mr. L. Person was a daring thing, an early Reagan supporter. He invited us all to a rally up in North Alabama. To my Black Belt eyes, used to folks maintaining a facade of stateliness, North Alabama was a lumpy land of poor white people with junk piled in their yards. We finally got to the rally, in a piney flatland filled with fever-eyed men in their court appearance suits, and I asked my Mom and Grandmom, "Are we at a Klan rally?"

Alas, it was not an exciting Klan rally, it was mumbled boredom. Later we visited L. Person's home, where I perused his shelves of books. I only remember one:

https://books.google.com/books/about/No_More_Black_Babies.html?id=tZa3MQAACAAJ

Later on, I told my Mom about that book, and she confronted Lizard on it, and he gave some slippery answer that seemed plausible by 1979 standards.

So anyway, Mom and Grandmom did phone-banking in the election, Reagan was more or less our family business, I had nothing against Carter but he failed to get the hostages, Boom, voted Ronnie, done. Turned out to be my last R vote for a while, but I did it.

As for L. Person, he visited us on Christmas Day, I was sleeping off a party from Christmas Eve, so to be cute he 1. Picked up MY guitar and started flailing on it to wake me up, and 2. went behind the French doors that formed a wall to my bedroom, and started tapping on them.

I sorta kinda kicked the glass out of them while he was tapping.

Lizard Person freaked the fuck out and fled the house.

I only saw him once ever again, more than a decade later. He showed up at my Mom's house wearing a Confederate lapel pin. I found out after his death that he had founded a "League" of the South or some shit. By happenstance I had heard of them when I was enrolled at Alabama and had gone on the student radio as "Student X" doing my best O Brother Where Art Thou "We ain't GOT no radio" voice, "defending" this League in absurd ways but actually I was mockin it Mr. Gambini.

Anyway, Mr. Person never said anything explicit. He used that good old cutesiness, that lingering pause, that raised eyebrow.

Me, later on I became Military Police and a Dirty Hippy at the same time.

[Aqua Buddha 14809]

Just now, Neonmoon said:

God dammit. 

In no fucking way, did lowering taxes trickle down to the common man who spent it, and the economy boomed. Stop believing this stupid horseshit. 

GDP was the same during Reagan's first term as Carter's term. The economy got better because Volker conquered inflation, increasing the purchasing power of people's money, and Reagan deficit spent a shit ton of the military. It was wasn't the common man getting a few more bucks in his pocket and buying a new bass boat. 

I didn't say it benefited them.  I said they spent their money, and the markets benefitted.

To @Bozo_Casanova's point, it's a wealth transfer.  Get the proletariat to spend their money and the corporations and shareholders benefit.  It trickles up, not down.

Sure, the proletariat gets a few hundred bucks in tax cuts and then sticks their chest out.  However, in the long run, they end up paying more for things they used to get for free like schools, roads, health care, etc.

 

[Beau Vine 55887]

13 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

Mr. Person, as a college student, had been kicked out of 1950s U of Alabama for acting too racist. Read that twice. He is said to have finished up his degree at Baylor. and sometime later became a lawyer.

[bernorange 8386]

1 hour ago, The Dog said:

you know "Trump as Speaker" is DOA when a guy from an R+19 district says "hell naw."

 

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

.....because Trump isn't MAGA-crazy enough.  ...

 

1 hour ago, 'stache said:

Oh his phone will be off the hook today and by 5:00 pm he’ll be groveling that he was misunderstood and thinks trump is the chosen one for all important positions.

You folk obviously don't know much about Thomas Massie or his history with Trump.

https://rollcall.com/2020/03/27/who-is-thomas-massie-the-house-member-from-kentucky-trump-wants-thrown-out-of-the-gop/

[locodos 5593]

Taxes?  What are those?

- Large US Corporations

[Neonmoon 38130]

24 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

I didn't say it benefited them.  I said they spent their money, and the markets benefitted.

To @Bozo_Casanova's point, it's a wealth transfer.  Get the proletariat to spend their money and the corporations and shareholders benefit.  It trickles up, not down.

Sure, the proletariat gets a few hundred bucks in tax cuts and then sticks their chest out.  However, in the long run, they end up paying more for things they used to get for free like schools, roads, health care, etc.

 

You keep saying the proletariat got more money, spent it, and made the economy better. In no way did that happen, no matter how many times you repeat it. 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20950]

Perhaps the problem is with Democrats ....

 

 

 

[Beau Vine 55887]

One of the GOP Congressmen being interviewed earlier in the week on something I was watching said that this problem was caused by people who don't understand politics electing people who don't understand politics.   He said these people don't understand that the way you accomplish things is by building coalitions and compromising with others; these people "expect the leadoff batter to hit a grand slam" and they get angry and lash out if they get any other outcome. 

[Js1 87281]

Just now, Beau Vine said:

One of the GOP Congressmen being interviewed earlier in the week on something I was watching said that this problem was caused by people who don't understand politics electing people who don't understand politics.   He said these people don't understand that the way you accomplish things is by building coalitions and compromising with others; these people "expect the leadoff batter to hit a grand slam" and they get angry and lash out if they get any other outcome. 

A great analogy.  And reinforces my belief that a compromise speaker that just lasts through the rest of the year needs to be chosen and voted on with Dems and GOP.  Immediately take action on passing a bill to fund the government through next year with Ukraine aid, kill impeachment / put it to an up and down vote on the floor and pass a new Rules package getting rid of the MTV. 

Even if this person only does this and then quits, it benefits the country. 2024 is a wash because you know everyone will be out campaigning the vast majority of the year.  Get the critical business done before Christmas and then let Congress do nothing in 2024.

[wildcat09 29600]

Why kill the impeachment inquiry? The GOP is so fucking bad at it it's going to end up helping Dems.

[Gourmand 7778]

 

Edited October 5, 2023 by Gourmand

[Js1 87281]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Why kill the impeachment inquiry? The GOP is so fucking bad at it it's going to end up helping Dems.

Because it is fucking stupid and when Trump looks like he is going to lose bigly in October 2024, they will use it as an October surprise, a la the Comey letter.  Kill it now and don't let it be a thing next year. 

[Dbeasy 15613]

When I look back on my own political awakening, it pisses me off it took me so long to become aware of all of the Republican bullshit. 

Always an independent, I tended to be slightly conservative due to fiscal concerns, and beliefs around individual responsibility.

2015 was a major year for me. Despite it being obvious for years, I finally realized how the Fox News propaganda train was destroying the country.  I caught on to Trump early during the primary and didn’t vote for him, but amazingly kept thinking he might govern differently once in office, until a few weeks after he took office it was obvious that his moronic behavior would continue. In retrospect that was ridiculous to think he would not be a total embarrassment. 

I do think there’s hope for the future. I connected with two Trumpers last week that I hadn’t talked to in awhile and they are done with him and other radicals.  Unfortunately, one them operates in the rarified air of the super rich, and he said a bunch of those folks are not only still on the Trump bandwagon, they still believe all the QAAnon conspiracy bill shit.  

 

 

[Beau Vine 55887]

8 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Because it is fucking stupid and when Trump looks like he is going to lose bigly in October 2024, they will use it as an October surprise, a la the Comey letter.  Kill it now and don't let it be a thing next year. 

You want Crooked Joe Biden to shut down his own impeachment hearing?

[RomaVicta 30623]

12 hours ago, Born to Run said:

Meanwhile the Republican Party has veered insanely far to the right with what little policy they have left. Abortion, Guns, Immigration are plain as day radically more extreme right.
They aren't fiscally conservative except to cut taxes to the wealthy.

Very good post.

It's interesting how even what the "right" is has been totally transformed from a fundamental counter to big government, big spending, and over-regulation to a bundle of issues that just a few decades ago wouldn't have even been defined as partisan issues.

Abortion: No reason for this to be partisan. A person can be anti-abortion for moral reasons and still believe in expanding aid to the poor, cutting defense spending, and even the Equal Rights Amendment. 

Guns: Same thing. In fact, there actually isn't even much of a difference between how most Dems and GOPs feel about restricting gun sales, allowing private gun ownership, and even registering guns. The GOPs turned this into another scare issue by saying the Dems want to take all your guns so that they can enslave you.

Immigration: Should this be a partisan issue? I don't think so. Neither party is for unlimited open borders. Just as in guns, one party says the other party wants a flood of immigrants to increase their voting base. A real debate on immigration would discuss the value of persons willing to take jobs most citizens don't want and then decide if we're happy with the possible exploitation of migrant farm workers to keep food prices down.

"The right" pretty much doesn't exist anymore. A friend tells of his Dad who grew up in pre-WW2 Boston. Lots of gangs. I'm not sure which way this went, but there was a gang that had been called the Irish Boys. That gang's location became a place where Jewish people lived. Even though the gang was comprised of Jewish boys, they kept the name of the Irish Boys.

So it is with the right. Whatever they were, they no longer are. Sticking with the label of the "right," I believe, keeps the electorate and journalists from addressing the actual paradigm shift.

I've written too long, I suspect. It's just all so horribly interesting.

[Chewbacca 7830]

11 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

They were always there my brother, but there weren’t as many, and there was less reason to see them if you weren’t looking closely. 

I'm sure they were always there, but not in the prevalent role they have today.  Back then they were tolerated.  Now they are praised (and elected) for their shittiness.

[Rimbo 27087]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Because what do you think is more likely: 1) the review of said beliefs causes them to take a more rational, empathetic view of things, or 2) the review of said beliefs leads them to conclude that they don't hate ENOUGH/have ENOUGH anger at everyone who isn't like them?

The correct answer is, "Both."

Anyone who thinks it'll go one way or the other is pushing propaganda/simping for someone.

[Bookman 4769]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Cutting taxes without cutting spending concomitantly is not fiscally conservative.  It's irresponsible.

It sure juices that economy though, which is helpful when seeking reelection!

[The Dog 44865]

[Js1 87281]

28 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

You want Crooked Joe Biden to shut down his own impeachment hearing?

They’re going to pick Biden to be Speaker?