McCarthy loses Speaker vote 3 times…

[Ingomike]

Again you are going by 118th

Says updated in January…

 

[rhamersley]

I thought this thread was about the Speaker of the House. Oh well…does prove my point about the attention span of the average voter. They need to add Ritalin to those chemtrails.



Meanwhile…

Pipe dream in my opinion. Been wrong before, but I'd be willing to bet that there are enough "republican" house members to vote against him, probably in bigger numbers than the eight that voted against McCarthy. There's a whole neo-con wing of members to whom the idea of a Trump speakership would make them a bit queasy, I'd wager to guess.

 

[HKFaninCarmel]

So compromising away our constitution and the bill of rights is okay?
Maybe for you but not for me.

Nothing will ever advance without compromise. Nothing.

That doesn’t mean you give away the bill of rights. Anytime someone runs on ‘No Compromise’ I know they will be a terrible do-nothing.

 

[HKFaninCarmel]

Pipe dream in my opinion. Been wrong before, but I'd be willing to bet that there are enough "republican" house members to vote against him, probably in bigger numbers than the eight that voted against McCarthy. There's a whole neo-con wing of members to whom the idea of a Trump speakership would make them a bit queasy, I'd wager to guess.

Trump speakership would be terrible. Of course people will vote against it. Let’s push our most toxic brand to the front and show people we really are a Trump cult.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

INGO Mike got us side tracked defending Young.

Oh, sure, just start pointing fingers now...

What were we talking about again? I forget.

Who wants pizza?

 

[DragonGunner]

How does enabling the Democrat help the situation? You're tired of compromise so you're actively seeking nothing over settling for something? That's all or nothing thinking and not conducive to positive outcomes.



Sure, those are great reasons to vote against him in the Primary. How exactly is electing a Democrat in the General in anyway better? Do you really think the Democrat will be more in line with what you want or are you just throwing a political tantrum?

Chuck Norris said years ago the democrats have moved so far left they are communist and republicans have moved so far left they are now the democrats. Very few good men out there to choose from, they are all bought out. Or get bought out. What have republicans done to balance the budget and stop the spending and start bringing the debt down? You got a few in DC calling out the warning and pointing out the RINO’s. And you just want to against them and vote for same people. So far we been $33 Trillion wrong. It’s a big spending club and me and you ain’t in it. Keep voting for the Todd Young’s and Holcombs. You only get to pick who the elites put up.

 

[DragonGunner]

Sounds all good but the root problem is not really the politicians you speak of, it is the voters that select them…

That’s who I’m talking about.

 

[KG1]

Pipe dream in my opinion. Been wrong before, but I'd be willing to bet that there are enough "republican" house members to vote against him, probably in bigger numbers than the eight that voted against McCarthy. There's a whole neo-con wing of members to whom the idea of a Trump speakership would make them a bit queasy, I'd wager to guess.

It will never happen. I posted this previously. Unless the GOP conference wants to change the rules, Trump cannot occupy a Republican leadership role while under indictment.

Even if Trump had full Republican support in the House, Rule 26 of the GOP Conference states, "A member of the Republican Leadership shall step aside if indicted for a felony for which a sentence of two or more years imprisonment may be imposed."

 

[rhamersley]

It will never happen. I posted this previously. Unless the GOP conference wants to change the rules, Trump cannot occupy a Republican leadership role while under indictment.

Even if Trump had full Republican support in the House, Rule 26 of the GOP Conference states, "A member of the Republican Leadership shall step aside if indicted for a felony for which a sentence of two or more years imprisonment may be imposed."

I saw you post that, and agree. I do believe, however, that my posit also holds true. Even if there were no felony indictments, I think there would be enough "friendly fire" to sink any attempt to get him into the position.

 

[Route 45]

 

[ZurokSlayer7X9]

A lot on here talking about compromise. The thing is, compromise exists within a spectrum. Compromise is necessary when we have two groups trying to work together for a better future, but I'm not convinced we are seeing that. It's more like a few radicals shifting the Overton Window left, while a few idealists are trying to keep it towards the right, all while the majority are not trying to rock the boat and get rich in the process. I can respect one trying to play the system and play the long game, but eventually you reach a breaking point with compromise, effectively creating a Catch 22.

There is no such thing as stasis here, progress happens either good or bad. You either resist and try to prevent progress, but will likely become irrelevant. You can compromise, but the question remains is how far is too far, and you eventually come to a point where you will risk losing your base ideals. Either way, things change.

Take guns for example. I believe, as well as a lot here, that we've compromised enough. How many rights have we lost due this death by a thousand cuts process? And yet we are still called out for being too stubborn. Well if one side wants to completely eliminate gun ownership, how do we compromise with that?

I'm not saying compromise is bad, neither am I saying being an idealist is bad. Compromising on everything will eventually cost us our ideals, while being monolithic in our stance will end in failure. It is likely the political terrain has devolved past the ability for our checks and balances to stabilize things, and in order for ideals to prosper, we must adopt a new strategy (not suggesting violence). What that strategy is, well it would need a smarter man than I to figure out.

 

[DragonGunner]

People calling Gaetz a traitor, like Newt Gingrich. But one of the Constitutional traitors told FOX news that McCarthy had since Jan. To work out a new spending bill that was to cut spending. He gave his word to do it but instead he ran to Biden and got a bill that added $280 Billion more instead of reducing it. He had so much crap that 90 republicans refused to go along with it. Yet Biden loving McCarthy belittled Gaetz that it’s all personal. What was Gaetz going to do just look the other way while democrat loving McCarthy lied? McCarthy had all of June, July, August to bring stuff forward but he waits till the very end hoping to get his spending bill passed with the help of the democrats. Ya there’s traitors but it’s not Gaetz.

 

[rhamersley]

Congress Warns That Gaetz And McCarthy Are Distracting From Important Work Of Voting Themselves Raises

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Members of the United States Congress have formally rebuked House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and Rep. Matt Gaetz for what they are calling "unnecessary infighting" that they claim is distracting from the important work of giving themselves raises.

babylonbee.com

 

[KG1]

I saw you post that, and agree. I do believe, however, that my posit also holds true. Even if there were no felony indictments, I think there would be enough "friendly fire" to sink any attempt to get him into the position.

I agree with what you posted and along with what I posted talk of Trump becoming speaker is just that.

 

[oze]

Because you don’t make progress without a price. We have allowed them to twist our representation into what it is. You don’t get to correct it without a penalty.

Nope.

 

[oze]

Where the hell is Lauren Boebert! Indiana wasn’t represented as well, looks like I’ll be voting Libertarian for the most part. Done voting for rinos.

Me too! At least, for President.

 

[oze]

This is almost as cool as voting for a new Pope.

And it's way past time for that.

 

[BugI02]

Is it just me, or is the word "traitor" tossed out by conservatives as freely as "racist" is by liberals?

trai·tor
noun
a person who betrays a friend, country, principle, etc.

 

[BugI02]

47 will they come out with a Trump AK47 if he gets back in

Hopefully a commemorative edition Krink

 

[BugI02]

Let me see if I understand this correctly. You're upset that the Republicans didn't give you everything you want so you're going to waste your votes on people that have little chance to win and are not likely to give you any more of what you want than the Republicans you're upset about, thus helping the Democrats, who are not only unlikely to give you what you want but are likely to take what you have, get elected?

I guess I just don't see the value in throwing such a political tantrum. It sure does help explain why we are where we're at though.

It's like a message in a bottle, sending a 'message' no one is likely to read or care much about if they do - but, hey; 4% is +1 on George Washington or something