|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Oct 11, 2023 18:27:07 GMT -5
at this point, the GOP leadership should schedule votes and simply keep having votes over and over and over and over and over, 5 or 6 dissents each time, simply shame these megalomaniacs to the entire country. That's ... not the greatest plan, especially for the GOP. For one thing, forcing someone to take a public stance can then lock them into it. People don't like to be made to back down in public, and the holdouts actually have some leverage here. Keep in mind that they only people they have to satisfy in order to get re-elected is the people in their own districts. Now, if they actually wanted to get anything done in Congress, they would need to worry about not pissing off everyone else. But if their main goal is just to destroy the functioning government, an impasse is actually to their advantage. The best outcome for the GOP is that they quietly get 217 GOP votes by using non-public pressure and promises. One interesting thing here (just like it was interesting in January) is that George Santos could buy himself some kind of immunity from being kicked out by trading his possibly vital vote. well, normally that would be correct. but they are already 'locked' into their 6 person or whatever veto power. Someone has to call their bluff versus this @$$%*!* like they hold 4 aces. they have essentially become legistlative terrorists. this is Matt Gaetz and Boebert and co. after all. would the Dems let AOC and Omar call the shots for the entire Congress? no the same thing is going to occur and re-occur. McCarthy was actually correct (even if he messed up to become Speaker by dealing with the devil) to get a vote. a quiet agreement for the Speaker just defers the same issue. they want a government shutdown, plain and simple, better to deal with it and make a compromise (not with them) to get on with life now, vs it'll just repeat again in 30, 60, 90 days. these are clowns. they've shown they simply won't agree to anything that gets in the way of their govt shutdown.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Oct 11, 2023 18:38:30 GMT -5
the same thing is going to occur and re-occur. McCarthy was actually correct (even if he messed up to become Speaker by dealing with the devil) to get a vote. a quiet agreement for the Speaker just defers the same issue. There is always a vote for Speaker at the beginning of a Congress. The one for McCarthy wasn't something unique.
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Oct 11, 2023 18:48:27 GMT -5
the same thing is going to occur and re-occur. McCarthy was actually correct (even if he messed up to become Speaker by dealing with the devil) to get a vote. a quiet agreement for the Speaker just defers the same issue. There is always a vote for Speaker at the beginning of a Congress. The one for McCarthy wasn't something unique. yeah, so what the length and number of votes for McCarthy was in fact unique
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2023 19:10:37 GMT -5
I came here to post how thrilled I am that Trump's endorsee did not win. I still think Trump could win the electorate though. He certainly could. I don't think he will. By the time the election rolls around my guess is he will be a convicted felon. That certainly won't stop his core from voting, but might stop his party from nominating. After the Jordan Speaker loss, it seems the Congress Red doesn't really care what Trump thinks anymore. That's at least a start.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Oct 11, 2023 19:18:15 GMT -5
There is always a vote for Speaker at the beginning of a Congress. The one for McCarthy wasn't something unique. yeah, so what the length and number of votes for McCarthy was in fact unique Well you made it sound like there isn't usually a vote or something and that's entirely untrue.
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Oct 11, 2023 19:34:59 GMT -5
yeah, so what the length and number of votes for McCarthy was in fact unique Well you made it sound like there isn't usually a vote or something and that's entirely untrue. no, I didn't make it sound like that at all. someone read something in that was not stated
|
|
|
Post by HOLIDAY on Oct 11, 2023 22:52:04 GMT -5
He certainly could. I don't think he will. By the time the election rolls around my guess is he will be a convicted felon. That certainly won't stop his core from voting, but might stop his party from nominating. After the Jordan Speaker loss, it seems the Congress Red doesn't really care what Trump thinks anymore. That's at least a start. Is that what you think? They better listen if they want a future.
|
|
|
Post by leftcoaster71 on Oct 12, 2023 19:21:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jsquare on Oct 12, 2023 19:41:03 GMT -5
What's next?
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Oct 12, 2023 19:47:44 GMT -5
Trump is next. The carnival barker will be leading the Circus. I can’t wait.
|
|
|
Post by jsquare on Oct 12, 2023 19:49:16 GMT -5
Trump is next. The carnival barker will be leading the Circus. I can’t wait. I don't think that's next. My guess is McCarthy.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Oct 12, 2023 19:51:08 GMT -5
Trump is next. The carnival barker will be leading the Circus. I can’t wait. I don't think that's next. My guess is McCarthy. McCarthy can’t/won’t get more votes than Scalise.
|
|
|
Post by jsquare on Oct 12, 2023 19:52:30 GMT -5
I don't think that's next. My guess is McCarthy. McCarthy can’t/won’t get more votes than Scalise. He did once. How about Hakeem Jefferies?
|
|
|
Post by Mocha on Oct 12, 2023 19:52:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Oct 12, 2023 20:02:23 GMT -5
McCarthy can’t/won’t get more votes than Scalise. He did once. How about Hakeem Jefferies? Reports are that he’s 10-20 votes shy, but Scalise has never come up for a full vote and Jordan had expressed a willingness to nominate and endorse him. McCarthy and Scalise represent the same faction, and Scalise is more ”likable”. I think it would be close in terms of total votes, but not enough to clinch. No Republican is going to overtly vote for Jefferies. It’s political suicide.
|
|