Wild scene as Rep. Mike Rogers has to be physically restrained by another member while going after Gaetz as McCarthy tries to secure final votes pic.twitter.com/c0u2lZxgYr
— Cabot Phillips (@cabot_phillips) January 7, 2023
House Speaker Vote
30,756 Views |
450 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by whiterock
The incels going to have to return to TDS.
Rep. Hudson, R-N.C., left, pulls Rep. Rogers, R-Ala., as he confronts Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., during the 14th round of voting for speaker as the House meets for the fourth day to try and elect a speaker in Washington, Friday, Jan. 6, 2023. (@AP Photo/@andyharnik) pic.twitter.com/ok3K8ERtfU
— Andrew Harnik (@andyharnik) January 7, 2023
During vote to adjourn Matt Gaetz talks to Kevin McCarthy.
— CSPAN (@cspan) January 7, 2023
McCarthy changes his vote to adjourn.
Appears a 15th vote for speaker will take place shortly.
WATCH LIVE on C-SPAN https://t.co/ilQQvA1GLA #118thCongress pic.twitter.com/e7JzJwDOaN
"Therefore, the honorable Kevin McCarthy of the state of California, having received a majority of the votes cast, is duly elected Speaker of the House of Representatives."
— CSPAN (@cspan) January 7, 2023
15th Ballot Result:
Kevin McCarthy - 216
Hakeem Jeffries - 211
Present - 6 #118thCongress pic.twitter.com/m3ksWLVnuf
"That was easy, huh?"#118thCongress pic.twitter.com/JkK61RbY4a
— CSPAN (@cspan) January 7, 2023
a hard scenario to engineer, given that it is the establishment conducting a full court press to make him go away.....Redbrickbear said:I would be happy to see Trump out of the picture if the GOP establishment would go away as well.RMF5630 said:McCarthy, like Trump, needs to go.Redbrickbear said:The dissident Right's argument is that McCarthy is not gonna actually disrupt much of the Biden agenda.RMF5630 said:My point exactly. I remember one time where Pelosi had to meet with people, I thought it was the 2nd ballot but I may be wrong. GOP is messed up. This is not the way to slow up Biden's agenda, not being able to even stay together to get a Speaker?Mitch Blood Green said:RMF5630 said:This is why the Dem's are kicking GOP ass. They support the larger movement, they would have had a Speaker on the 2nd vote.Osodecentx said:
Some movement toward McCarthy on the 12th vote, but he still will not get there
Dems never bring this to the floor. There have been 7 people against Pelosi. They work it out before it gets like this. (Republicans used to, too).
At least not on anything but tax rates and judicial appointments.
McCarthy is not going to allow laws to be passed that secure the border, cut spending, end the expensive proxy war in Ukraine, or really do much else conservative at all.
Just lots of endless "investigations" into Hunter Biden.
Those that say that Trump still has a shot at President, they can't even get the Speaker elected with a majority. This group needs to sit back, they are poison.
In Tx, moderate collusion with Dems is tradition. There are pledge cards, etc....the vote is public. So once there is a guy with enough pledges, one is incentivized to get on board to avoid being frozen out of committee assignments, etc.... There is an argument that such actually coopts Dems, and there is at least a kernel of truth there, but no question it is an effort by the center to keep the right at bay, too. It's why Tx, considered by most to be the reddest of the red states, typically follows rather than leads other red states on conservative agenda initiatives.Osodecentx said:You referenced moderates who colluded. You also said Freedom Caucus members who voted in a manner that resulted in a Democrat Speaker were not colluding. Trying to figure out what the difference is. Both result in a Democrat speaker.whiterock said:Probably. It would be the sensible thing to do since it's fait accompli. What does that have to do with the topic we are discussing?Osodecentx said:I'm betting your state rep voted for the prevailing Tx speaker, Mr republican board memberwhiterock said:Jeffries would then clear the hurdle. So, in context, the holdouts are threatening to stand aside and let the will of the House prevail, not collude with the other side. It is moderates who will collude. It happens every session in the Tx legislature....Dems effectively pick the Speaker of the Tx House. And, as some posts above indicate (as I predicted), it is moderates who will do that same gambit in the US House.Osodecentx said:Motive would be to create chaos in which the dead enders prosper. Nobody knew who these people were 1 week ago. Now that there is chaos, they are getting hours of air time and notoriety.whiterock said:That's not the way I read "goes to plurality." Far more likely that mods crossover to cut some kind of deal with Dems to get enough votes for McCarthy or some other moderate Republican, offering up rules more favorable to the minority, promised legislation, one or more committee chairmanships. There is a template for that kind of structure = the Texas legislature. The organizer of such effort is invariably.....the speaker.Osodecentx said:Quote:Quote:
Then stop complaining that a handful of conservative insurgents are standing against Kevin McCarthy. Not your fight.
Our Andy McCarthy no relation to the aspiring speaker points out that if twelve House Republicans voted "present," New York Democrat Hakeem Jeffries could be elected speaker. That scenario is unlikely, but there was a report yesterday that "Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Lauren Boebert (R-CO) and Scott Perry (R-PA) told Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) that they don't mind if the speaker vote goes to plurality and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) is elected because they will fight him"
In other words, at least a handful of House Republicans are saying they're fine with a Democratic speaker and Democrats effectively controlling the House, despite the outcome of the 2022 midterm elections. Note that these are exactly the kinds of Republicans who call each other "RINO," contend that other Republicans aren't tough enough or smart enough, and simply believe that others aren't willing to do what it takes to win.
Right now, in the House, the GOP is a nominal or technical majority party with a large faction which has no interest in acting like a majority. They may well be happier being in the minority.
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/what-the-speaker-fight-says-about-the-republican-party/
I think I mentioned a scenario like this to you in another thread……just a scenario, at this point.
I believe your concern was moderate Republicans cutting a deal that resulted in a Democrat Speaker. This scenario is the Gaetz/Boebert group doing a kamikazie which results in a Democrat Speaker
Think about motive. The only viable reason to cross over to Dems is to gain the speakership........
The process would be to not vote for anyone, thus lowering the threshold vote necessary to be elected Speaker.
note they actually said it: That scenario is unlikely, but there was a report yesterday that "Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Lauren Boebert (R-CO) and Scott Perry (R-PA) told Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) that they don't mind if the speaker vote goes to plurality and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) is elected because they will fight him"
You said: So, in context, the holdouts are threatening to stand aside and let the will of the House prevail, not collude with the other side. It is moderates who will collude.
That's not the same as a conservative faction letting the race go to plurality. There is no colluding with the other side, and the intent is not to elect a Dem speaker. It is a negotiating ploy...."careful, buddy, or we'll blow the whole thing up." It forces McCarthy to be cautious, to negotiate, because McCarthy knows if he overplays his hand that his opponent has a grenade. McCarthy has to be careful not to give anyone a reason to pull a pin.
Further, what you suggest is plainly at odds with the larger picture. What the FC has done here is pick a battle at the best possible moment....up front...when their negotiating position is strongest by holding hostage (speakership) that which McCarthy wants. The goal is not to pass legislation. The goal is for more advantageous rules (the rules are everything in politics). If they try to fight like this bill by bill, they get rolled every time. McCarthy just calls Jeffries and says "I need 5 votes, help me out and I'll give you (x, y, z, on something else)." But McCarthy can't do that here to get his speakership, or it will blow the GOP to smithereens (see RMF's post above). What has emerged is highly beneficial to conservatism. And frankly necessary. McCarthy has outperformed other GOP leadership the last 6 years, but he is indeed a swamp creature, a darling of K-street.
Not that you would care since you are an independent, after all...who doesn't care about the outcome of inside baseball like conservatives seeking to limit the latitude of a moderate speaker.
We had a Congress and a debate broke out. Speeches. Recriminations. Allegations. Finger pointing. Brinkmanship. Almost came to blows. Then, at an obscenely early hour on a Saturday morning, a deal got done.boognish_bear said:"That was easy, huh?"#118thCongress pic.twitter.com/JkK61RbY4a
— CSPAN (@cspan) January 7, 2023
That's the way the democratic process is supposed to work.
The people have been well-served.
whiterock said:In Tx, moderate collusion with Dems is tradition. There are pledge cards, etc....the vote is public. So once there is a guy with enough pledges, one is incentivized to get on board to avoid being frozen out of committee assignments, etc.... There is an argument that such actually coopts Dems, and there is at least a kernel of truth there, but no question it is an effort by the center to keep the right at bay, too. It's why Tx, considered by most to be the reddest of the red states, typically follows rather than leads other red states on conservative agenda initiatives.Osodecentx said:You referenced moderates who colluded. You also said Freedom Caucus members who voted in a manner that resulted in a Democrat Speaker were not colluding. Trying to figure out what the difference is. Both result in a Democrat speaker.whiterock said:Probably. It would be the sensible thing to do since it's fait accompli. What does that have to do with the topic we are discussing?Osodecentx said:I'm betting your state rep voted for the prevailing Tx speaker, Mr republican board memberwhiterock said:Jeffries would then clear the hurdle. So, in context, the holdouts are threatening to stand aside and let the will of the House prevail, not collude with the other side. It is moderates who will collude. It happens every session in the Tx legislature....Dems effectively pick the Speaker of the Tx House. And, as some posts above indicate (as I predicted), it is moderates who will do that same gambit in the US House.Osodecentx said:Motive would be to create chaos in which the dead enders prosper. Nobody knew who these people were 1 week ago. Now that there is chaos, they are getting hours of air time and notoriety.whiterock said:That's not the way I read "goes to plurality." Far more likely that mods crossover to cut some kind of deal with Dems to get enough votes for McCarthy or some other moderate Republican, offering up rules more favorable to the minority, promised legislation, one or more committee chairmanships. There is a template for that kind of structure = the Texas legislature. The organizer of such effort is invariably.....the speaker.Osodecentx said:Quote:Quote:
Then stop complaining that a handful of conservative insurgents are standing against Kevin McCarthy. Not your fight.
Our Andy McCarthy no relation to the aspiring speaker points out that if twelve House Republicans voted "present," New York Democrat Hakeem Jeffries could be elected speaker. That scenario is unlikely, but there was a report yesterday that "Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Lauren Boebert (R-CO) and Scott Perry (R-PA) told Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) that they don't mind if the speaker vote goes to plurality and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) is elected because they will fight him"
In other words, at least a handful of House Republicans are saying they're fine with a Democratic speaker and Democrats effectively controlling the House, despite the outcome of the 2022 midterm elections. Note that these are exactly the kinds of Republicans who call each other "RINO," contend that other Republicans aren't tough enough or smart enough, and simply believe that others aren't willing to do what it takes to win.
Right now, in the House, the GOP is a nominal or technical majority party with a large faction which has no interest in acting like a majority. They may well be happier being in the minority.
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/what-the-speaker-fight-says-about-the-republican-party/
I think I mentioned a scenario like this to you in another thread……just a scenario, at this point.
I believe your concern was moderate Republicans cutting a deal that resulted in a Democrat Speaker. This scenario is the Gaetz/Boebert group doing a kamikazie which results in a Democrat Speaker
Think about motive. The only viable reason to cross over to Dems is to gain the speakership........
The process would be to not vote for anyone, thus lowering the threshold vote necessary to be elected Speaker.
note they actually said it: That scenario is unlikely, but there was a report yesterday that "Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Lauren Boebert (R-CO) and Scott Perry (R-PA) told Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) that they don't mind if the speaker vote goes to plurality and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) is elected because they will fight him"
You said: So, in context, the holdouts are threatening to stand aside and let the will of the House prevail, not collude with the other side. It is moderates who will collude.
That's not the same as a conservative faction letting the race go to plurality. There is no colluding with the other side, and the intent is not to elect a Dem speaker. It is a negotiating ploy...."careful, buddy, or we'll blow the whole thing up." It forces McCarthy to be cautious, to negotiate, because McCarthy knows if he overplays his hand that his opponent has a grenade. McCarthy has to be careful not to give anyone a reason to pull a pin.
Further, what you suggest is plainly at odds with the larger picture. What the FC has done here is pick a battle at the best possible moment....up front...when their negotiating position is strongest by holding hostage (speakership) that which McCarthy wants. The goal is not to pass legislation. The goal is for more advantageous rules (the rules are everything in politics). If they try to fight like this bill by bill, they get rolled every time. McCarthy just calls Jeffries and says "I need 5 votes, help me out and I'll give you (x, y, z, on something else)." But McCarthy can't do that here to get his speakership, or it will blow the GOP to smithereens (see RMF's post above). What has emerged is highly beneficial to conservatism. And frankly necessary. McCarthy has outperformed other GOP leadership the last 6 years, but he is indeed a swamp creature, a darling of K-street.
Not that you would care since you are an independent, after all...who doesn't care about the outcome of inside baseball like conservatives seeking to limit the latitude of a moderate speaker.
What I know about the new rules I like
whiterock said:We had a Congress and a debate broke out. Speeches. Recriminations. Allegations. Finger pointing. Brinkmanship. Almost came to blows. Then, at an obscenely early hour on a Saturday morning, a deal got done.boognish_bear said:"That was easy, huh?"#118thCongress pic.twitter.com/JkK61RbY4a
— CSPAN (@cspan) January 7, 2023
That's the way the democratic process is supposed to work.
The people have been well-served.
Dem lock step again. GOP better figure out how to use the system and their majority for more than philosophical stands of integrity. Can the GOP recruit the Dem Whip?
RMF5630 said:whiterock said:We had a Congress and a debate broke out. Speeches. Recriminations. Allegations. Finger pointing. Brinkmanship. Almost came to blows. Then, at an obscenely early hour on a Saturday morning, a deal got done.boognish_bear said:"That was easy, huh?"#118thCongress pic.twitter.com/JkK61RbY4a
— CSPAN (@cspan) January 7, 2023
That's the way the democratic process is supposed to work.
The people have been well-served.
Dem lock step again. GOP better figure out how to use the system and their majority for more than philosophical stands of integrity. Can the GOP recruit the Dem Whip?
Rs won't pass a lot of legislation with these rules. At least they won't get anything done the right way
It's too bad the Dems didn't nominate Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick. If nothing else, it would have made the roll call votes more fun.
LOL. Blue star for this.whiterock said:Osodecentx said:You referenced moderates who colluded. You also said Freedom Caucus members who voted in a manner that resulted in a Democrat Speaker were not colluding. Trying to figure out what the difference is. Both result in a Democrat speaker.whiterock said:Probably. It would be the sensible thing to do since it's fait accompli. What does that have to do with the topic we are discussing?Osodecentx said:I'm betting your state rep voted for the prevailing Tx speaker, Mr republican board memberwhiterock said:Jeffries would then clear the hurdle. So, in context, the holdouts are threatening to stand aside and let the will of the House prevail, not collude with the other side. It is moderates who will collude. It happens every session in the Tx legislature....Dems effectively pick the Speaker of the Tx House. And, as some posts above indicate (as I predicted), it is moderates who will do that same gambit in the US House.Osodecentx said:Motive would be to create chaos in which the dead enders prosper. Nobody knew who these people were 1 week ago. Now that there is chaos, they are getting hours of air time and notoriety.whiterock said:That's not the way I read "goes to plurality." Far more likely that mods crossover to cut some kind of deal with Dems to get enough votes for McCarthy or some other moderate Republican, offering up rules more favorable to the minority, promised legislation, one or more committee chairmanships. There is a template for that kind of structure = the Texas legislature. The organizer of such effort is invariably.....the speaker.Osodecentx said:Quote:Quote:
Then stop complaining that a handful of conservative insurgents are standing against Kevin McCarthy. Not your fight.
Our Andy McCarthy no relation to the aspiring speaker points out that if twelve House Republicans voted "present," New York Democrat Hakeem Jeffries could be elected speaker. That scenario is unlikely, but there was a report yesterday that "Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Lauren Boebert (R-CO) and Scott Perry (R-PA) told Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) that they don't mind if the speaker vote goes to plurality and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) is elected because they will fight him"
In other words, at least a handful of House Republicans are saying they're fine with a Democratic speaker and Democrats effectively controlling the House, despite the outcome of the 2022 midterm elections. Note that these are exactly the kinds of Republicans who call each other "RINO," contend that other Republicans aren't tough enough or smart enough, and simply believe that others aren't willing to do what it takes to win.
Right now, in the House, the GOP is a nominal or technical majority party with a large faction which has no interest in acting like a majority. They may well be happier being in the minority.
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/what-the-speaker-fight-says-about-the-republican-party/
I think I mentioned a scenario like this to you in another thread……just a scenario, at this point.
I believe your concern was moderate Republicans cutting a deal that resulted in a Democrat Speaker. This scenario is the Gaetz/Boebert group doing a kamikazie which results in a Democrat Speaker
Think about motive. The only viable reason to cross over to Dems is to gain the speakership........
The process would be to not vote for anyone, thus lowering the threshold vote necessary to be elected Speaker.
note they actually said it: That scenario is unlikely, but there was a report yesterday that "Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Lauren Boebert (R-CO) and Scott Perry (R-PA) told Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) that they don't mind if the speaker vote goes to plurality and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) is elected because they will fight him"
You said: So, in context, the holdouts are threatening to stand aside and let the will of the House prevail, not collude with the other side. It is moderates who will collude.
Not that you would care since you are an independent, after all...who doesn't care about the outcome of inside baseball like conservatives seeking to limit the latitude of a moderate speaker.
His little schtick is unintentionally hilarious.
I said I like the new rules, but you guys won't be passing conservative (at least what you and white consider conservative) legislation. Even started a new thread on the rules. https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/118780/replies/3070057Mothra said:LOL. Blue star for this.whiterock said:Osodecentx said:You referenced moderates who colluded. You also said Freedom Caucus members who voted in a manner that resulted in a Democrat Speaker were not colluding. Trying to figure out what the difference is. Both result in a Democrat speaker.whiterock said:Probably. It would be the sensible thing to do since it's fait accompli. What does that have to do with the topic we are discussing?Osodecentx said:I'm betting your state rep voted for the prevailing Tx speaker, Mr republican board memberwhiterock said:Jeffries would then clear the hurdle. So, in context, the holdouts are threatening to stand aside and let the will of the House prevail, not collude with the other side. It is moderates who will collude. It happens every session in the Tx legislature....Dems effectively pick the Speaker of the Tx House. And, as some posts above indicate (as I predicted), it is moderates who will do that same gambit in the US House.Osodecentx said:Motive would be to create chaos in which the dead enders prosper. Nobody knew who these people were 1 week ago. Now that there is chaos, they are getting hours of air time and notoriety.whiterock said:That's not the way I read "goes to plurality." Far more likely that mods crossover to cut some kind of deal with Dems to get enough votes for McCarthy or some other moderate Republican, offering up rules more favorable to the minority, promised legislation, one or more committee chairmanships. There is a template for that kind of structure = the Texas legislature. The organizer of such effort is invariably.....the speaker.Osodecentx said:Quote:Quote:
Then stop complaining that a handful of conservative insurgents are standing against Kevin McCarthy. Not your fight.
Our Andy McCarthy no relation to the aspiring speaker points out that if twelve House Republicans voted "present," New York Democrat Hakeem Jeffries could be elected speaker. That scenario is unlikely, but there was a report yesterday that "Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Lauren Boebert (R-CO) and Scott Perry (R-PA) told Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) that they don't mind if the speaker vote goes to plurality and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) is elected because they will fight him"
In other words, at least a handful of House Republicans are saying they're fine with a Democratic speaker and Democrats effectively controlling the House, despite the outcome of the 2022 midterm elections. Note that these are exactly the kinds of Republicans who call each other "RINO," contend that other Republicans aren't tough enough or smart enough, and simply believe that others aren't willing to do what it takes to win.
Right now, in the House, the GOP is a nominal or technical majority party with a large faction which has no interest in acting like a majority. They may well be happier being in the minority.
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/what-the-speaker-fight-says-about-the-republican-party/
I think I mentioned a scenario like this to you in another thread……just a scenario, at this point.
I believe your concern was moderate Republicans cutting a deal that resulted in a Democrat Speaker. This scenario is the Gaetz/Boebert group doing a kamikazie which results in a Democrat Speaker
Think about motive. The only viable reason to cross over to Dems is to gain the speakership........
The process would be to not vote for anyone, thus lowering the threshold vote necessary to be elected Speaker.
note they actually said it: That scenario is unlikely, but there was a report yesterday that "Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Lauren Boebert (R-CO) and Scott Perry (R-PA) told Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) that they don't mind if the speaker vote goes to plurality and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) is elected because they will fight him"
You said: So, in context, the holdouts are threatening to stand aside and let the will of the House prevail, not collude with the other side. It is moderates who will collude.
Not that you would care since you are an independent, after all...who doesn't care about the outcome of inside baseball like conservatives seeking to limit the latitude of a moderate speaker.
His little schtick is unintentionally hilarious.
Under the new rules, will y'all pass term limits, balanced budget, balanced budget amendment, term limits, pro-life legislation, right to carry, lower tax rates etc.?
Can someone paraphrase new rules, haven't been keeping up.Osodecentx said:I said I like the new rules, but you guys won't be passing conservative (at least what you and white consider conservative) legislation. Even started a new thread on the rules. https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/118780/replies/3070057Mothra said:LOL. Blue star for this.whiterock said:Osodecentx said:You referenced moderates who colluded. You also said Freedom Caucus members who voted in a manner that resulted in a Democrat Speaker were not colluding. Trying to figure out what the difference is. Both result in a Democrat speaker.whiterock said:Probably. It would be the sensible thing to do since it's fait accompli. What does that have to do with the topic we are discussing?Osodecentx said:I'm betting your state rep voted for the prevailing Tx speaker, Mr republican board memberwhiterock said:Jeffries would then clear the hurdle. So, in context, the holdouts are threatening to stand aside and let the will of the House prevail, not collude with the other side. It is moderates who will collude. It happens every session in the Tx legislature....Dems effectively pick the Speaker of the Tx House. And, as some posts above indicate (as I predicted), it is moderates who will do that same gambit in the US House.Osodecentx said:Motive would be to create chaos in which the dead enders prosper. Nobody knew who these people were 1 week ago. Now that there is chaos, they are getting hours of air time and notoriety.whiterock said:That's not the way I read "goes to plurality." Far more likely that mods crossover to cut some kind of deal with Dems to get enough votes for McCarthy or some other moderate Republican, offering up rules more favorable to the minority, promised legislation, one or more committee chairmanships. There is a template for that kind of structure = the Texas legislature. The organizer of such effort is invariably.....the speaker.Osodecentx said:Quote:Quote:
Then stop complaining that a handful of conservative insurgents are standing against Kevin McCarthy. Not your fight.
Our Andy McCarthy no relation to the aspiring speaker points out that if twelve House Republicans voted "present," New York Democrat Hakeem Jeffries could be elected speaker. That scenario is unlikely, but there was a report yesterday that "Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Lauren Boebert (R-CO) and Scott Perry (R-PA) told Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) that they don't mind if the speaker vote goes to plurality and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) is elected because they will fight him"
In other words, at least a handful of House Republicans are saying they're fine with a Democratic speaker and Democrats effectively controlling the House, despite the outcome of the 2022 midterm elections. Note that these are exactly the kinds of Republicans who call each other "RINO," contend that other Republicans aren't tough enough or smart enough, and simply believe that others aren't willing to do what it takes to win.
Right now, in the House, the GOP is a nominal or technical majority party with a large faction which has no interest in acting like a majority. They may well be happier being in the minority.
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/what-the-speaker-fight-says-about-the-republican-party/
I think I mentioned a scenario like this to you in another thread……just a scenario, at this point.
I believe your concern was moderate Republicans cutting a deal that resulted in a Democrat Speaker. This scenario is the Gaetz/Boebert group doing a kamikazie which results in a Democrat Speaker
Think about motive. The only viable reason to cross over to Dems is to gain the speakership........
The process would be to not vote for anyone, thus lowering the threshold vote necessary to be elected Speaker.
note they actually said it: That scenario is unlikely, but there was a report yesterday that "Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Lauren Boebert (R-CO) and Scott Perry (R-PA) told Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) that they don't mind if the speaker vote goes to plurality and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) is elected because they will fight him"
You said: So, in context, the holdouts are threatening to stand aside and let the will of the House prevail, not collude with the other side. It is moderates who will collude.
Not that you would care since you are an independent, after all...who doesn't care about the outcome of inside baseball like conservatives seeking to limit the latitude of a moderate speaker.
His little schtick is unintentionally hilarious.
Under the new rules, will y'all pass term limits, balanced budget, balanced budget amendment, term limits, pro-life legislation, right to carry, lower tax rates etc.?
already got the right to carry.. its in the constitution.Osodecentx said:I said I like the new rules, but you guys won't be passing conservative (at least what you and white consider conservative) legislation. Even started a new thread on the rules. https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/118780/replies/3070057Mothra said:LOL. Blue star for this.whiterock said:Osodecentx said:You referenced moderates who colluded. You also said Freedom Caucus members who voted in a manner that resulted in a Democrat Speaker were not colluding. Trying to figure out what the difference is. Both result in a Democrat speaker.whiterock said:Probably. It would be the sensible thing to do since it's fait accompli. What does that have to do with the topic we are discussing?Osodecentx said:I'm betting your state rep voted for the prevailing Tx speaker, Mr republican board memberwhiterock said:Jeffries would then clear the hurdle. So, in context, the holdouts are threatening to stand aside and let the will of the House prevail, not collude with the other side. It is moderates who will collude. It happens every session in the Tx legislature....Dems effectively pick the Speaker of the Tx House. And, as some posts above indicate (as I predicted), it is moderates who will do that same gambit in the US House.Osodecentx said:Motive would be to create chaos in which the dead enders prosper. Nobody knew who these people were 1 week ago. Now that there is chaos, they are getting hours of air time and notoriety.whiterock said:That's not the way I read "goes to plurality." Far more likely that mods crossover to cut some kind of deal with Dems to get enough votes for McCarthy or some other moderate Republican, offering up rules more favorable to the minority, promised legislation, one or more committee chairmanships. There is a template for that kind of structure = the Texas legislature. The organizer of such effort is invariably.....the speaker.Osodecentx said:Quote:Quote:
Then stop complaining that a handful of conservative insurgents are standing against Kevin McCarthy. Not your fight.
Our Andy McCarthy no relation to the aspiring speaker points out that if twelve House Republicans voted "present," New York Democrat Hakeem Jeffries could be elected speaker. That scenario is unlikely, but there was a report yesterday that "Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Lauren Boebert (R-CO) and Scott Perry (R-PA) told Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) that they don't mind if the speaker vote goes to plurality and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) is elected because they will fight him"
In other words, at least a handful of House Republicans are saying they're fine with a Democratic speaker and Democrats effectively controlling the House, despite the outcome of the 2022 midterm elections. Note that these are exactly the kinds of Republicans who call each other "RINO," contend that other Republicans aren't tough enough or smart enough, and simply believe that others aren't willing to do what it takes to win.
Right now, in the House, the GOP is a nominal or technical majority party with a large faction which has no interest in acting like a majority. They may well be happier being in the minority.
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/what-the-speaker-fight-says-about-the-republican-party/
I think I mentioned a scenario like this to you in another thread……just a scenario, at this point.
I believe your concern was moderate Republicans cutting a deal that resulted in a Democrat Speaker. This scenario is the Gaetz/Boebert group doing a kamikazie which results in a Democrat Speaker
Think about motive. The only viable reason to cross over to Dems is to gain the speakership........
The process would be to not vote for anyone, thus lowering the threshold vote necessary to be elected Speaker.
note they actually said it: That scenario is unlikely, but there was a report yesterday that "Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Lauren Boebert (R-CO) and Scott Perry (R-PA) told Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) that they don't mind if the speaker vote goes to plurality and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) is elected because they will fight him"
You said: So, in context, the holdouts are threatening to stand aside and let the will of the House prevail, not collude with the other side. It is moderates who will collude.
Not that you would care since you are an independent, after all...who doesn't care about the outcome of inside baseball like conservatives seeking to limit the latitude of a moderate speaker.
His little schtick is unintentionally hilarious.
Under the new rules, will y'all pass term limits, balanced budget, balanced budget amendment, term limits, pro-life legislation, right to carry, lower tax rates etc.?
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
the one where you have to wear a clown wig and nose while speaking on the house floor is the best.RMF5630 said:Can someone paraphrase new rules, haven't been keeping up.Osodecentx said:I said I like the new rules, but you guys won't be passing conservative (at least what you and white consider conservative) legislation. Even started a new thread on the rules. https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/118780/replies/3070057Mothra said:LOL. Blue star for this.whiterock said:Osodecentx said:You referenced moderates who colluded. You also said Freedom Caucus members who voted in a manner that resulted in a Democrat Speaker were not colluding. Trying to figure out what the difference is. Both result in a Democrat speaker.whiterock said:Probably. It would be the sensible thing to do since it's fait accompli. What does that have to do with the topic we are discussing?Osodecentx said:I'm betting your state rep voted for the prevailing Tx speaker, Mr republican board memberwhiterock said:Jeffries would then clear the hurdle. So, in context, the holdouts are threatening to stand aside and let the will of the House prevail, not collude with the other side. It is moderates who will collude. It happens every session in the Tx legislature....Dems effectively pick the Speaker of the Tx House. And, as some posts above indicate (as I predicted), it is moderates who will do that same gambit in the US House.Osodecentx said:Motive would be to create chaos in which the dead enders prosper. Nobody knew who these people were 1 week ago. Now that there is chaos, they are getting hours of air time and notoriety.whiterock said:That's not the way I read "goes to plurality." Far more likely that mods crossover to cut some kind of deal with Dems to get enough votes for McCarthy or some other moderate Republican, offering up rules more favorable to the minority, promised legislation, one or more committee chairmanships. There is a template for that kind of structure = the Texas legislature. The organizer of such effort is invariably.....the speaker.Osodecentx said:Quote:Quote:
Then stop complaining that a handful of conservative insurgents are standing against Kevin McCarthy. Not your fight.
Our Andy McCarthy no relation to the aspiring speaker points out that if twelve House Republicans voted "present," New York Democrat Hakeem Jeffries could be elected speaker. That scenario is unlikely, but there was a report yesterday that "Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Lauren Boebert (R-CO) and Scott Perry (R-PA) told Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) that they don't mind if the speaker vote goes to plurality and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) is elected because they will fight him"
In other words, at least a handful of House Republicans are saying they're fine with a Democratic speaker and Democrats effectively controlling the House, despite the outcome of the 2022 midterm elections. Note that these are exactly the kinds of Republicans who call each other "RINO," contend that other Republicans aren't tough enough or smart enough, and simply believe that others aren't willing to do what it takes to win.
Right now, in the House, the GOP is a nominal or technical majority party with a large faction which has no interest in acting like a majority. They may well be happier being in the minority.
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/what-the-speaker-fight-says-about-the-republican-party/
I think I mentioned a scenario like this to you in another thread……just a scenario, at this point.
I believe your concern was moderate Republicans cutting a deal that resulted in a Democrat Speaker. This scenario is the Gaetz/Boebert group doing a kamikazie which results in a Democrat Speaker
Think about motive. The only viable reason to cross over to Dems is to gain the speakership........
The process would be to not vote for anyone, thus lowering the threshold vote necessary to be elected Speaker.
note they actually said it: That scenario is unlikely, but there was a report yesterday that "Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Lauren Boebert (R-CO) and Scott Perry (R-PA) told Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) that they don't mind if the speaker vote goes to plurality and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) is elected because they will fight him"
You said: So, in context, the holdouts are threatening to stand aside and let the will of the House prevail, not collude with the other side. It is moderates who will collude.
Not that you would care since you are an independent, after all...who doesn't care about the outcome of inside baseball like conservatives seeking to limit the latitude of a moderate speaker.
His little schtick is unintentionally hilarious.
Under the new rules, will y'all pass term limits, balanced budget, balanced budget amendment, term limits, pro-life legislation, right to carry, lower tax rates etc.?
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
Check the box. Next!4th and Inches said:already got the right to carry.. its in the constitution.Osodecentx said:I said I like the new rules, but you guys won't be passing conservative (at least what you and white consider conservative) legislation. Even started a new thread on the rules. https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/118780/replies/3070057Mothra said:LOL. Blue star for this.whiterock said:Osodecentx said:You referenced moderates who colluded. You also said Freedom Caucus members who voted in a manner that resulted in a Democrat Speaker were not colluding. Trying to figure out what the difference is. Both result in a Democrat speaker.whiterock said:Probably. It would be the sensible thing to do since it's fait accompli. What does that have to do with the topic we are discussing?Osodecentx said:I'm betting your state rep voted for the prevailing Tx speaker, Mr republican board memberwhiterock said:Jeffries would then clear the hurdle. So, in context, the holdouts are threatening to stand aside and let the will of the House prevail, not collude with the other side. It is moderates who will collude. It happens every session in the Tx legislature....Dems effectively pick the Speaker of the Tx House. And, as some posts above indicate (as I predicted), it is moderates who will do that same gambit in the US House.Osodecentx said:Motive would be to create chaos in which the dead enders prosper. Nobody knew who these people were 1 week ago. Now that there is chaos, they are getting hours of air time and notoriety.whiterock said:That's not the way I read "goes to plurality." Far more likely that mods crossover to cut some kind of deal with Dems to get enough votes for McCarthy or some other moderate Republican, offering up rules more favorable to the minority, promised legislation, one or more committee chairmanships. There is a template for that kind of structure = the Texas legislature. The organizer of such effort is invariably.....the speaker.Osodecentx said:Quote:Quote:
Then stop complaining that a handful of conservative insurgents are standing against Kevin McCarthy. Not your fight.
Our Andy McCarthy no relation to the aspiring speaker points out that if twelve House Republicans voted "present," New York Democrat Hakeem Jeffries could be elected speaker. That scenario is unlikely, but there was a report yesterday that "Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Lauren Boebert (R-CO) and Scott Perry (R-PA) told Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) that they don't mind if the speaker vote goes to plurality and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) is elected because they will fight him"
In other words, at least a handful of House Republicans are saying they're fine with a Democratic speaker and Democrats effectively controlling the House, despite the outcome of the 2022 midterm elections. Note that these are exactly the kinds of Republicans who call each other "RINO," contend that other Republicans aren't tough enough or smart enough, and simply believe that others aren't willing to do what it takes to win.
Right now, in the House, the GOP is a nominal or technical majority party with a large faction which has no interest in acting like a majority. They may well be happier being in the minority.
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/what-the-speaker-fight-says-about-the-republican-party/
I think I mentioned a scenario like this to you in another thread……just a scenario, at this point.
I believe your concern was moderate Republicans cutting a deal that resulted in a Democrat Speaker. This scenario is the Gaetz/Boebert group doing a kamikazie which results in a Democrat Speaker
Think about motive. The only viable reason to cross over to Dems is to gain the speakership........
The process would be to not vote for anyone, thus lowering the threshold vote necessary to be elected Speaker.
note they actually said it: That scenario is unlikely, but there was a report yesterday that "Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Lauren Boebert (R-CO) and Scott Perry (R-PA) told Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) that they don't mind if the speaker vote goes to plurality and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) is elected because they will fight him"
You said: So, in context, the holdouts are threatening to stand aside and let the will of the House prevail, not collude with the other side. It is moderates who will collude.
Not that you would care since you are an independent, after all...who doesn't care about the outcome of inside baseball like conservatives seeking to limit the latitude of a moderate speaker.
His little schtick is unintentionally hilarious.
Under the new rules, will y'all pass term limits, balanced budget, balanced budget amendment, term limits, pro-life legislation, right to carry, lower tax rates etc.?
How to right to carry work in Illinois?
Biggest takeaway from this week: 20 House Republicans fought to make congress actually work for the people they represent.
— Adrian Norman (@AdrianNormanDC) January 7, 2023
Not 220, just 20.
The starting point with somebody in Illinois filing a lawsuit that says that the laws are unconstitutional and go from there. When it reaches Scotus, the world will be set right. Just like the other court cases that have gone that route, CA had a couple go thru recently that returned gun ownership/carry rights back to people. Remember that the courts can only act if others ask them to..Osodecentx said:Check the box. Next!4th and Inches said:already got the right to carry.. its in the constitution.Osodecentx said:I said I like the new rules, but you guys won't be passing conservative (at least what you and white consider conservative) legislation. Even started a new thread on the rules. https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/118780/replies/3070057Mothra said:LOL. Blue star for this.whiterock said:Osodecentx said:You referenced moderates who colluded. You also said Freedom Caucus members who voted in a manner that resulted in a Democrat Speaker were not colluding. Trying to figure out what the difference is. Both result in a Democrat speaker.whiterock said:Probably. It would be the sensible thing to do since it's fait accompli. What does that have to do with the topic we are discussing?Osodecentx said:I'm betting your state rep voted for the prevailing Tx speaker, Mr republican board memberwhiterock said:Jeffries would then clear the hurdle. So, in context, the holdouts are threatening to stand aside and let the will of the House prevail, not collude with the other side. It is moderates who will collude. It happens every session in the Tx legislature....Dems effectively pick the Speaker of the Tx House. And, as some posts above indicate (as I predicted), it is moderates who will do that same gambit in the US House.Osodecentx said:Motive would be to create chaos in which the dead enders prosper. Nobody knew who these people were 1 week ago. Now that there is chaos, they are getting hours of air time and notoriety.whiterock said:That's not the way I read "goes to plurality." Far more likely that mods crossover to cut some kind of deal with Dems to get enough votes for McCarthy or some other moderate Republican, offering up rules more favorable to the minority, promised legislation, one or more committee chairmanships. There is a template for that kind of structure = the Texas legislature. The organizer of such effort is invariably.....the speaker.Osodecentx said:Quote:Quote:
Then stop complaining that a handful of conservative insurgents are standing against Kevin McCarthy. Not your fight.
Our Andy McCarthy no relation to the aspiring speaker points out that if twelve House Republicans voted "present," New York Democrat Hakeem Jeffries could be elected speaker. That scenario is unlikely, but there was a report yesterday that "Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Lauren Boebert (R-CO) and Scott Perry (R-PA) told Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) that they don't mind if the speaker vote goes to plurality and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) is elected because they will fight him"
In other words, at least a handful of House Republicans are saying they're fine with a Democratic speaker and Democrats effectively controlling the House, despite the outcome of the 2022 midterm elections. Note that these are exactly the kinds of Republicans who call each other "RINO," contend that other Republicans aren't tough enough or smart enough, and simply believe that others aren't willing to do what it takes to win.
Right now, in the House, the GOP is a nominal or technical majority party with a large faction which has no interest in acting like a majority. They may well be happier being in the minority.
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/what-the-speaker-fight-says-about-the-republican-party/
I think I mentioned a scenario like this to you in another thread……just a scenario, at this point.
I believe your concern was moderate Republicans cutting a deal that resulted in a Democrat Speaker. This scenario is the Gaetz/Boebert group doing a kamikazie which results in a Democrat Speaker
Think about motive. The only viable reason to cross over to Dems is to gain the speakership........
The process would be to not vote for anyone, thus lowering the threshold vote necessary to be elected Speaker.
note they actually said it: That scenario is unlikely, but there was a report yesterday that "Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Lauren Boebert (R-CO) and Scott Perry (R-PA) told Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) that they don't mind if the speaker vote goes to plurality and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) is elected because they will fight him"
You said: So, in context, the holdouts are threatening to stand aside and let the will of the House prevail, not collude with the other side. It is moderates who will collude.
Not that you would care since you are an independent, after all...who doesn't care about the outcome of inside baseball like conservatives seeking to limit the latitude of a moderate speaker.
His little schtick is unintentionally hilarious.
Under the new rules, will y'all pass term limits, balanced budget, balanced budget amendment, term limits, pro-life legislation, right to carry, lower tax rates etc.?
How to right to carry work in Illinois?
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
That's not new, Pelosi did that for years.4th and Inches said:the one where you have to wear a clown wig and nose while speaking on the house floor is the best.RMF5630 said:Can someone paraphrase new rules, haven't been keeping up.Osodecentx said:I said I like the new rules, but you guys won't be passing conservative (at least what you and white consider conservative) legislation. Even started a new thread on the rules. https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/118780/replies/3070057Mothra said:LOL. Blue star for this.whiterock said:Osodecentx said:You referenced moderates who colluded. You also said Freedom Caucus members who voted in a manner that resulted in a Democrat Speaker were not colluding. Trying to figure out what the difference is. Both result in a Democrat speaker.whiterock said:Probably. It would be the sensible thing to do since it's fait accompli. What does that have to do with the topic we are discussing?Osodecentx said:I'm betting your state rep voted for the prevailing Tx speaker, Mr republican board memberwhiterock said:Jeffries would then clear the hurdle. So, in context, the holdouts are threatening to stand aside and let the will of the House prevail, not collude with the other side. It is moderates who will collude. It happens every session in the Tx legislature....Dems effectively pick the Speaker of the Tx House. And, as some posts above indicate (as I predicted), it is moderates who will do that same gambit in the US House.Osodecentx said:Motive would be to create chaos in which the dead enders prosper. Nobody knew who these people were 1 week ago. Now that there is chaos, they are getting hours of air time and notoriety.whiterock said:That's not the way I read "goes to plurality." Far more likely that mods crossover to cut some kind of deal with Dems to get enough votes for McCarthy or some other moderate Republican, offering up rules more favorable to the minority, promised legislation, one or more committee chairmanships. There is a template for that kind of structure = the Texas legislature. The organizer of such effort is invariably.....the speaker.Osodecentx said:Quote:Quote:
Then stop complaining that a handful of conservative insurgents are standing against Kevin McCarthy. Not your fight.
Our Andy McCarthy no relation to the aspiring speaker points out that if twelve House Republicans voted "present," New York Democrat Hakeem Jeffries could be elected speaker. That scenario is unlikely, but there was a report yesterday that "Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Lauren Boebert (R-CO) and Scott Perry (R-PA) told Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) that they don't mind if the speaker vote goes to plurality and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) is elected because they will fight him"
In other words, at least a handful of House Republicans are saying they're fine with a Democratic speaker and Democrats effectively controlling the House, despite the outcome of the 2022 midterm elections. Note that these are exactly the kinds of Republicans who call each other "RINO," contend that other Republicans aren't tough enough or smart enough, and simply believe that others aren't willing to do what it takes to win.
Right now, in the House, the GOP is a nominal or technical majority party with a large faction which has no interest in acting like a majority. They may well be happier being in the minority.
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/what-the-speaker-fight-says-about-the-republican-party/
I think I mentioned a scenario like this to you in another thread……just a scenario, at this point.
I believe your concern was moderate Republicans cutting a deal that resulted in a Democrat Speaker. This scenario is the Gaetz/Boebert group doing a kamikazie which results in a Democrat Speaker
Think about motive. The only viable reason to cross over to Dems is to gain the speakership........
The process would be to not vote for anyone, thus lowering the threshold vote necessary to be elected Speaker.
note they actually said it: That scenario is unlikely, but there was a report yesterday that "Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Lauren Boebert (R-CO) and Scott Perry (R-PA) told Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) that they don't mind if the speaker vote goes to plurality and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) is elected because they will fight him"
You said: So, in context, the holdouts are threatening to stand aside and let the will of the House prevail, not collude with the other side. It is moderates who will collude.
Not that you would care since you are an independent, after all...who doesn't care about the outcome of inside baseball like conservatives seeking to limit the latitude of a moderate speaker.
His little schtick is unintentionally hilarious.
Under the new rules, will y'all pass term limits, balanced budget, balanced budget amendment, term limits, pro-life legislation, right to carry, lower tax rates etc.?
Seems you've missed my point. I was referring to your unintentionally hilarious bit about being "independent" and thinking you've really zinged other conservatives by calling them Republicans, and referring to the Republican Party as "your party."Osodecentx said:I said I like the new rules, but you guys won't be passing conservative (at least what you and white consider conservative) legislation. Even started a new thread on the rules. https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/118780/replies/3070057Mothra said:LOL. Blue star for this.whiterock said:Osodecentx said:You referenced moderates who colluded. You also said Freedom Caucus members who voted in a manner that resulted in a Democrat Speaker were not colluding. Trying to figure out what the difference is. Both result in a Democrat speaker.whiterock said:Probably. It would be the sensible thing to do since it's fait accompli. What does that have to do with the topic we are discussing?Osodecentx said:I'm betting your state rep voted for the prevailing Tx speaker, Mr republican board memberwhiterock said:Jeffries would then clear the hurdle. So, in context, the holdouts are threatening to stand aside and let the will of the House prevail, not collude with the other side. It is moderates who will collude. It happens every session in the Tx legislature....Dems effectively pick the Speaker of the Tx House. And, as some posts above indicate (as I predicted), it is moderates who will do that same gambit in the US House.Osodecentx said:Motive would be to create chaos in which the dead enders prosper. Nobody knew who these people were 1 week ago. Now that there is chaos, they are getting hours of air time and notoriety.whiterock said:That's not the way I read "goes to plurality." Far more likely that mods crossover to cut some kind of deal with Dems to get enough votes for McCarthy or some other moderate Republican, offering up rules more favorable to the minority, promised legislation, one or more committee chairmanships. There is a template for that kind of structure = the Texas legislature. The organizer of such effort is invariably.....the speaker.Osodecentx said:Quote:Quote:
Then stop complaining that a handful of conservative insurgents are standing against Kevin McCarthy. Not your fight.
Our Andy McCarthy no relation to the aspiring speaker points out that if twelve House Republicans voted "present," New York Democrat Hakeem Jeffries could be elected speaker. That scenario is unlikely, but there was a report yesterday that "Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Lauren Boebert (R-CO) and Scott Perry (R-PA) told Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) that they don't mind if the speaker vote goes to plurality and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) is elected because they will fight him"
In other words, at least a handful of House Republicans are saying they're fine with a Democratic speaker and Democrats effectively controlling the House, despite the outcome of the 2022 midterm elections. Note that these are exactly the kinds of Republicans who call each other "RINO," contend that other Republicans aren't tough enough or smart enough, and simply believe that others aren't willing to do what it takes to win.
Right now, in the House, the GOP is a nominal or technical majority party with a large faction which has no interest in acting like a majority. They may well be happier being in the minority.
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/what-the-speaker-fight-says-about-the-republican-party/
I think I mentioned a scenario like this to you in another thread……just a scenario, at this point.
I believe your concern was moderate Republicans cutting a deal that resulted in a Democrat Speaker. This scenario is the Gaetz/Boebert group doing a kamikazie which results in a Democrat Speaker
Think about motive. The only viable reason to cross over to Dems is to gain the speakership........
The process would be to not vote for anyone, thus lowering the threshold vote necessary to be elected Speaker.
note they actually said it: That scenario is unlikely, but there was a report yesterday that "Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Lauren Boebert (R-CO) and Scott Perry (R-PA) told Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) that they don't mind if the speaker vote goes to plurality and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) is elected because they will fight him"
You said: So, in context, the holdouts are threatening to stand aside and let the will of the House prevail, not collude with the other side. It is moderates who will collude.
Not that you would care since you are an independent, after all...who doesn't care about the outcome of inside baseball like conservatives seeking to limit the latitude of a moderate speaker.
His little schtick is unintentionally hilarious.
Under the new rules, will y'all pass term limits, balanced budget, balanced budget amendment, term limits, pro-life legislation, right to carry, lower tax rates etc.?
You're a silly guy, unintentionally so.
Who caved? Was it only one voter that made the difference in the last vote?
Isn't it your party?
No more my party than yours. Unlike you, I have never been a registered Republican. Like you, I claim to be conservative. Unlike you, I actually am a conservative and am a pragmatist who always votes for the more conservative candidates in local, state and national elections.Osodecentx said:
Isn't it your party?
Question: do you really believe calling it "my party" is a zing or put down?
Calling it "your party" seems accurate. You always vote for the Republican candidates, no matter how bad they are.Mothra said:No more my party than yours. Unlike you, I have never been a registered Republican. Like you, I claim to be conservative. Unlike you, I actually am a conservative and am a pragmatist who always votes for the more conservative candidates in local, state and national elections.Osodecentx said:
Isn't it your party?
Question: do you really believe calling it "my party" is a zing or put down?
How does one become a "registered Republican" in Texas. Maybe white rock can help us on that one.
So you have a right to carry in Illinois as soon as a case works its way up to the S Ct. Wouldn't federal legislation be a lot faster?4th and Inches said:The starting point with somebody in Illinois filing a lawsuit that says that the laws are unconstitutional and go from there. When it reaches Scotus, the world will be set right. Just like the other court cases that have gone that route, CA had a couple go thru recently that returned gun ownership/carry rights back to people. Remember that the courts can only act if others ask them to..Osodecentx said:Check the box. Next!4th and Inches said:already got the right to carry.. its in the constitution.Osodecentx said:I said I like the new rules, but you guys won't be passing conservative (at least what you and white consider conservative) legislation. Even started a new thread on the rules. https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/118780/replies/3070057Mothra said:LOL. Blue star for this.whiterock said:Osodecentx said:You referenced moderates who colluded. You also said Freedom Caucus members who voted in a manner that resulted in a Democrat Speaker were not colluding. Trying to figure out what the difference is. Both result in a Democrat speaker.whiterock said:Probably. It would be the sensible thing to do since it's fait accompli. What does that have to do with the topic we are discussing?Osodecentx said:I'm betting your state rep voted for the prevailing Tx speaker, Mr republican board memberwhiterock said:Jeffries would then clear the hurdle. So, in context, the holdouts are threatening to stand aside and let the will of the House prevail, not collude with the other side. It is moderates who will collude. It happens every session in the Tx legislature....Dems effectively pick the Speaker of the Tx House. And, as some posts above indicate (as I predicted), it is moderates who will do that same gambit in the US House.Osodecentx said:Motive would be to create chaos in which the dead enders prosper. Nobody knew who these people were 1 week ago. Now that there is chaos, they are getting hours of air time and notoriety.whiterock said:That's not the way I read "goes to plurality." Far more likely that mods crossover to cut some kind of deal with Dems to get enough votes for McCarthy or some other moderate Republican, offering up rules more favorable to the minority, promised legislation, one or more committee chairmanships. There is a template for that kind of structure = the Texas legislature. The organizer of such effort is invariably.....the speaker.Osodecentx said:Quote:Quote:
Then stop complaining that a handful of conservative insurgents are standing against Kevin McCarthy. Not your fight.
Our Andy McCarthy no relation to the aspiring speaker points out that if twelve House Republicans voted "present," New York Democrat Hakeem Jeffries could be elected speaker. That scenario is unlikely, but there was a report yesterday that "Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Lauren Boebert (R-CO) and Scott Perry (R-PA) told Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) that they don't mind if the speaker vote goes to plurality and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) is elected because they will fight him"
In other words, at least a handful of House Republicans are saying they're fine with a Democratic speaker and Democrats effectively controlling the House, despite the outcome of the 2022 midterm elections. Note that these are exactly the kinds of Republicans who call each other "RINO," contend that other Republicans aren't tough enough or smart enough, and simply believe that others aren't willing to do what it takes to win.
Right now, in the House, the GOP is a nominal or technical majority party with a large faction which has no interest in acting like a majority. They may well be happier being in the minority.
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/what-the-speaker-fight-says-about-the-republican-party/
I think I mentioned a scenario like this to you in another thread……just a scenario, at this point.
I believe your concern was moderate Republicans cutting a deal that resulted in a Democrat Speaker. This scenario is the Gaetz/Boebert group doing a kamikazie which results in a Democrat Speaker
Think about motive. The only viable reason to cross over to Dems is to gain the speakership........
The process would be to not vote for anyone, thus lowering the threshold vote necessary to be elected Speaker.
note they actually said it: That scenario is unlikely, but there was a report yesterday that "Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Lauren Boebert (R-CO) and Scott Perry (R-PA) told Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) that they don't mind if the speaker vote goes to plurality and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) is elected because they will fight him"
You said: So, in context, the holdouts are threatening to stand aside and let the will of the House prevail, not collude with the other side. It is moderates who will collude.
Not that you would care since you are an independent, after all...who doesn't care about the outcome of inside baseball like conservatives seeking to limit the latitude of a moderate speaker.
His little schtick is unintentionally hilarious.
Under the new rules, will y'all pass term limits, balanced budget, balanced budget amendment, term limits, pro-life legislation, right to carry, lower tax rates etc.?
How to right to carry work in Illinois?
laws are legal until they arent.. thats the way laws and courts work. They dont have to wait on the fed govt to act. You claim faster yet here we are..Osodecentx said:So you have a right to carry in Illinois as soon as a case works its way up to the S Ct. Wouldn't federal legislation be a lot faster?4th and Inches said:The starting point with somebody in Illinois filing a lawsuit that says that the laws are unconstitutional and go from there. When it reaches Scotus, the world will be set right. Just like the other court cases that have gone that route, CA had a couple go thru recently that returned gun ownership/carry rights back to people. Remember that the courts can only act if others ask them to..Osodecentx said:Check the box. Next!4th and Inches said:already got the right to carry.. its in the constitution.Osodecentx said:I said I like the new rules, but you guys won't be passing conservative (at least what you and white consider conservative) legislation. Even started a new thread on the rules. https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/118780/replies/3070057Mothra said:LOL. Blue star for this.whiterock said:Osodecentx said:You referenced moderates who colluded. You also said Freedom Caucus members who voted in a manner that resulted in a Democrat Speaker were not colluding. Trying to figure out what the difference is. Both result in a Democrat speaker.whiterock said:Probably. It would be the sensible thing to do since it's fait accompli. What does that have to do with the topic we are discussing?Osodecentx said:I'm betting your state rep voted for the prevailing Tx speaker, Mr republican board memberwhiterock said:Jeffries would then clear the hurdle. So, in context, the holdouts are threatening to stand aside and let the will of the House prevail, not collude with the other side. It is moderates who will collude. It happens every session in the Tx legislature....Dems effectively pick the Speaker of the Tx House. And, as some posts above indicate (as I predicted), it is moderates who will do that same gambit in the US House.Osodecentx said:Motive would be to create chaos in which the dead enders prosper. Nobody knew who these people were 1 week ago. Now that there is chaos, they are getting hours of air time and notoriety.whiterock said:That's not the way I read "goes to plurality." Far more likely that mods crossover to cut some kind of deal with Dems to get enough votes for McCarthy or some other moderate Republican, offering up rules more favorable to the minority, promised legislation, one or more committee chairmanships. There is a template for that kind of structure = the Texas legislature. The organizer of such effort is invariably.....the speaker.Osodecentx said:Quote:Quote:
Then stop complaining that a handful of conservative insurgents are standing against Kevin McCarthy. Not your fight.
Our Andy McCarthy no relation to the aspiring speaker points out that if twelve House Republicans voted "present," New York Democrat Hakeem Jeffries could be elected speaker. That scenario is unlikely, but there was a report yesterday that "Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Lauren Boebert (R-CO) and Scott Perry (R-PA) told Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) that they don't mind if the speaker vote goes to plurality and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) is elected because they will fight him"
In other words, at least a handful of House Republicans are saying they're fine with a Democratic speaker and Democrats effectively controlling the House, despite the outcome of the 2022 midterm elections. Note that these are exactly the kinds of Republicans who call each other "RINO," contend that other Republicans aren't tough enough or smart enough, and simply believe that others aren't willing to do what it takes to win.
Right now, in the House, the GOP is a nominal or technical majority party with a large faction which has no interest in acting like a majority. They may well be happier being in the minority.
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/what-the-speaker-fight-says-about-the-republican-party/
I think I mentioned a scenario like this to you in another thread……just a scenario, at this point.
I believe your concern was moderate Republicans cutting a deal that resulted in a Democrat Speaker. This scenario is the Gaetz/Boebert group doing a kamikazie which results in a Democrat Speaker
Think about motive. The only viable reason to cross over to Dems is to gain the speakership........
The process would be to not vote for anyone, thus lowering the threshold vote necessary to be elected Speaker.
note they actually said it: That scenario is unlikely, but there was a report yesterday that "Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Lauren Boebert (R-CO) and Scott Perry (R-PA) told Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) that they don't mind if the speaker vote goes to plurality and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) is elected because they will fight him"
You said: So, in context, the holdouts are threatening to stand aside and let the will of the House prevail, not collude with the other side. It is moderates who will collude.
Not that you would care since you are an independent, after all...who doesn't care about the outcome of inside baseball like conservatives seeking to limit the latitude of a moderate speaker.
His little schtick is unintentionally hilarious.
Under the new rules, will y'all pass term limits, balanced budget, balanced budget amendment, term limits, pro-life legislation, right to carry, lower tax rates etc.?
How to right to carry work in Illinois?
I dont live in Illinois for a reason
“The Internet is just a world passing around notes in a classroom.”
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart
4th and Inches said:laws are legal until they arent.. thats the way laws and courts work. They dont have to wait on the fed govt to act. You claim faster yet here we are..Osodecentx said:So you have a right to carry in Illinois as soon as a case works its way up to the S Ct. Wouldn't federal legislation be a lot faster?4th and Inches said:The starting point with somebody in Illinois filing a lawsuit that says that the laws are unconstitutional and go from there. When it reaches Scotus, the world will be set right. Just like the other court cases that have gone that route, CA had a couple go thru recently that returned gun ownership/carry rights back to people. Remember that the courts can only act if others ask them to..Osodecentx said:Check the box. Next!4th and Inches said:already got the right to carry.. its in the constitution.Osodecentx said:I said I like the new rules, but you guys won't be passing conservative (at least what you and white consider conservative) legislation. Even started a new thread on the rules. https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/118780/replies/3070057Mothra said:LOL. Blue star for this.whiterock said:Osodecentx said:You referenced moderates who colluded. You also said Freedom Caucus members who voted in a manner that resulted in a Democrat Speaker were not colluding. Trying to figure out what the difference is. Both result in a Democrat speaker.whiterock said:Probably. It would be the sensible thing to do since it's fait accompli. What does that have to do with the topic we are discussing?Osodecentx said:I'm betting your state rep voted for the prevailing Tx speaker, Mr republican board memberwhiterock said:Jeffries would then clear the hurdle. So, in context, the holdouts are threatening to stand aside and let the will of the House prevail, not collude with the other side. It is moderates who will collude. It happens every session in the Tx legislature....Dems effectively pick the Speaker of the Tx House. And, as some posts above indicate (as I predicted), it is moderates who will do that same gambit in the US House.Osodecentx said:Motive would be to create chaos in which the dead enders prosper. Nobody knew who these people were 1 week ago. Now that there is chaos, they are getting hours of air time and notoriety.whiterock said:That's not the way I read "goes to plurality." Far more likely that mods crossover to cut some kind of deal with Dems to get enough votes for McCarthy or some other moderate Republican, offering up rules more favorable to the minority, promised legislation, one or more committee chairmanships. There is a template for that kind of structure = the Texas legislature. The organizer of such effort is invariably.....the speaker.Osodecentx said:Quote:Quote:
Then stop complaining that a handful of conservative insurgents are standing against Kevin McCarthy. Not your fight.
Our Andy McCarthy no relation to the aspiring speaker points out that if twelve House Republicans voted "present," New York Democrat Hakeem Jeffries could be elected speaker. That scenario is unlikely, but there was a report yesterday that "Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Lauren Boebert (R-CO) and Scott Perry (R-PA) told Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) that they don't mind if the speaker vote goes to plurality and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) is elected because they will fight him"
In other words, at least a handful of House Republicans are saying they're fine with a Democratic speaker and Democrats effectively controlling the House, despite the outcome of the 2022 midterm elections. Note that these are exactly the kinds of Republicans who call each other "RINO," contend that other Republicans aren't tough enough or smart enough, and simply believe that others aren't willing to do what it takes to win.
Right now, in the House, the GOP is a nominal or technical majority party with a large faction which has no interest in acting like a majority. They may well be happier being in the minority.
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/what-the-speaker-fight-says-about-the-republican-party/
I think I mentioned a scenario like this to you in another thread……just a scenario, at this point.
I believe your concern was moderate Republicans cutting a deal that resulted in a Democrat Speaker. This scenario is the Gaetz/Boebert group doing a kamikazie which results in a Democrat Speaker
Think about motive. The only viable reason to cross over to Dems is to gain the speakership........
The process would be to not vote for anyone, thus lowering the threshold vote necessary to be elected Speaker.
note they actually said it: That scenario is unlikely, but there was a report yesterday that "Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Lauren Boebert (R-CO) and Scott Perry (R-PA) told Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) that they don't mind if the speaker vote goes to plurality and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) is elected because they will fight him"
You said: So, in context, the holdouts are threatening to stand aside and let the will of the House prevail, not collude with the other side. It is moderates who will collude.
Not that you would care since you are an independent, after all...who doesn't care about the outcome of inside baseball like conservatives seeking to limit the latitude of a moderate speaker.
His little schtick is unintentionally hilarious.
Under the new rules, will y'all pass term limits, balanced budget, balanced budget amendment, term limits, pro-life legislation, right to carry, lower tax rates etc.?
How to right to carry work in Illinois?
I dont live in Illinois for a reason
Me neither
ICYMI, I joined @SeanHannity last night with @MattGaetz to explain my final Speaker vote.
— Lauren Boebert (@laurenboebert) January 7, 2023
This has always been about delivering for the American people.
That is who I will always be accountable to.https://t.co/zBNJzLYYYy
McCarthy praises Trump, Gaetz for helping secure Speakership https://t.co/HtgbdYHK7B pic.twitter.com/dsiNX3Blcm
— The Hill (@thehill) January 7, 2023
Kevin McCarthy: "But I do want to specially thank President Trump. I don’t think anybody should doubt his influence. He was with me from the beginning." pic.twitter.com/jGo996A24p
— Ethan Harsell (@ethan_harsell) January 7, 2023
Osodecentx said:Calling it "your party" seems accurate. You always vote for the Republican candidates, no matter how bad they are.Mothra said:No more my party than yours. Unlike you, I have never been a registered Republican. Like you, I claim to be conservative. Unlike you, I actually am a conservative and am a pragmatist who always votes for the more conservative candidates in local, state and national elections.Osodecentx said:
Isn't it your party?
Question: do you really believe calling it "my party" is a zing or put down?
How does one become a "registered Republican" in Texas. Maybe white rock can help us on that one.
So I guess the answer is yes, you feel calling other people Republicans is a put down or a zing. Lol.
It makes no difference to me what you call me. If you want to call me a Republican to make you feel better about your own choices, so be it. I don't look at that as an insult, but then again, I'm not a deranged NT.
Yes, I will always vote for the more conservative candidate over the liberal counterpart. Anyone who calls themselves conservative and votes (or doesn't vote) in a way that gets liberals elected is a buffoon. One would've thought the last two years would've taught you that lesson but apparently you're a slow learner.
No, I don't think calling someone a Republican or Democrat is a zinger. It is interesting that your interpret "your party" as a zinger or an insult. You always vote Republican but consider it an insult if some anonymous poster references your party. It isn't an insult; it is an accurate descriptionMothra said:Osodecentx said:Calling it "your party" seems accurate. You always vote for the Republican candidates, no matter how bad they are.Mothra said:No more my party than yours. Unlike you, I have never been a registered Republican. Like you, I claim to be conservative. Unlike you, I actually am a conservative and am a pragmatist who always votes for the more conservative candidates in local, state and national elections.Osodecentx said:
Isn't it your party?
Question: do you really believe calling it "my party" is a zing or put down?
How does one become a "registered Republican" in Texas. Maybe white rock can help us on that one.
So I guess the answer is yes, you feel calling other people Republicans is a put down or a zing. Lol.
It makes no difference to me what you call me. If you want to call me a Republican to make you feel better about your own choices, so be it. I don't look at that as an insult, but then again, I'm not a deranged NT.
Yes, I will always vote for the more conservative candidate over the liberal counterpart. Anyone who calls themselves conservative and votes (or doesn't vote) in a way that gets liberals elected is a buffoon. One would've thought the last two years would've taught you that lesson but apparently you're a slow learner.
i voted for Trump twice; never again. Biden is terrible, but hasn't talked about terminating parts of the Constitution or encouraged people to attack the Capitol. That is a disqualification from holding federal office. I'll be voting in the Republican primary for one of the good candidates that will be running.
From your posts I believe you are a Christian. I know I am. I cringe when some of the posters here define Christianity for the rest of us because some have eccentric beliefs about what Christians believe. Aren't you glad they don't define Christianity for the rest of us. Likewise, I cringe when you try to define "conservative" for the rest of us. Your beliefs concerning conservatism are not the final word on the subject (thankfully). You are listening to your conscience and I respect that. I'm listening to mine and will vote accordingly.