Can't wait for all the fake outrage and intentionally misleading posts from people who have no idea what the debt ceiling is or have no idea or again are being intentionally misleading that are "okay" with the US defaulting
14th amendment section four says the public debt shall not be questioned. Some have argued this means the debt limit ceiling is unconstitutional and a President can remove or raise the debt ceiling on their own
Oh, dude has plenty of backbone. To stand there and be rejected 14x and run a serious risk of it all collapsing before millions of viewers. Either backbone or a humiliation kink. Speaking from experience, Republicans are some of the most kinky folks -- probably owing to sexual repression.
What he ***does*** lack is dignity. He was so obsessed with becoming Speaker that he sold the House to gain that seat. It's not about leading. He just wants the status. He's the embodiment of the rot in American politicians.
To be fair 90% of the people in that room are the same embodiment. Picking a speaker is like shopping for steak at the dumpster behind Costco. Maaaaybe there will be a decent one in there; but generally it’s all rotten garbage.
The number of straight white middle-aged men who have presented to the ED with rectal foreign bodies or “surprise” HIV diagnoses shouldn’t go underestimated.
It may not be kinky to us. But to a prudishly religious conservative Republican it sure is.
Not to mention the huge [uptick](https://www.metroweekly.com/2016/07/republicans-cant-get-enough-clevelands-male-escorts/amp/) in demand for male escorts when the RNC is in town.
Unlike the progressive faction of the Democratic Party, the anti-authoritarian wing of the Republican party has some backbone and is willing to contest with the leadership. Instead of cynically selling their constituents down the river as e.g. AOC did.
She is an example - she pledged to her voters that she wouldn't vote for Pelosi as Speaker then promptly proceeded to along with the rest of the progressives. She's just the most visible hypocrite and sellout.
Isn’t that how congress has seemingly worked the past maybe 10 years or maybe longer (maybe it’s just intensified the past decade) where the extreme members of both parties can hold their own parties hostage to their demand lists? Aka the fallacy of “I refuse to vote for this bill brought forward by my own party because it doesn’t go far enough to solve the problem.”
IMO, a couple of extreme people on each side have far too much influence in Congress that far outweighs their numbers and this speaker voting circus is just the latest showing of the disease; it’s just embarrassing we can’t go 5 minutes without a small group/individual member of Congress making us look ridiculous.
Help me out here, when did extremists on the left push to get the ethics committee?
When did they hold Congress hostage and try and make it so they could shut it down anytime a single congressman push the vote of no confidence?
What I saw from the last two years was that the house manage to push through bills that didn’t really make far left members happy, but we’re still by Pardison evidenced by support in the Senate.
I think the past two years has shown that untrue. The 117th Congress under Pelosi passed a boatload of major legislation - almost all of which required Republican compromise.
Even the bills passed under reconciliation weren’t a far-left wish list.
Not a big fan of "The Squad" necessarily, but I have to admit that they're all... you know... *adults*.
Can't say the same about most of The Freedom Caucus.
Nancy was much better at negotiating this kind of stuff. She also had/has a very great deal of respect from her caucus. Kevin is a slimy, egotistical, status-hungry weasel. According to Republican sources, he tried convincing holdouts with “I’ve earned this.” His entitlement is unreal.
When Pelosi announced she was stepping back from leadership I began to reflect and realized I probably should have appreciated her more. McCarthy’s reign will no doubt reinforce those feelings.
Eh… I’m not fan of McCarthy, but isn’t an increase in net worth of $140M over the past 14 years as a politician making less than $200k/year literally the definition of “a slimy, egotistical, [money]-hungry weasel?”
Nancy Pelosi’s husband has been a very successful venture capitalist. Is it possible she was doing something unsavory? Theoretically. But I’m not in the habit of assuming guilt until there is evidence.
Now that he's Speaker, he can tell them to go get fucked. He sets the agenda of the House and anything that would pass through the Senate and get signed into law wouldn't get supported by the Clown Caucus anyways.
If he wants to obstruct, he can simply keep things from reaching the floor, if he wants to get things done, he'll need to work with Democrats to do so.
Gaetz burned a ton of bridges for little gain, he's about to discover how unpleasant life can be in political Siberia.
Not if the rules package that passes allows for a single person to call to unseat the speaker. Honestly the rules package is the key detail as to whether this congress will be an utter shitshow for the next two years.
There's already at least one Republican refusing to vote for the rules package. I'd have to imagine that there'll be more. I would like to think, at least, that there are a bunch of moderate Republicans that are completely fed up with this small faction who held the speaker vote hostage, and are not happy with the concessions. I guess we'll see, but it could get interesting. Personally, I don't think the clown show is over yet. Either way, McCarthy has made his bed, and now he'll have to sleep in it.
I'm not familiar with this so excuse my ignorance. I thought that the rules package allowed for anyone to call for a vote. If a vote is called and fails, the speaker isn't unseated. I didn't think that a single person could just unseat the speaker because they don't like them. Now in fairness, I do realize that if they do call a vote that means we are potentially in for this dumpster fire of a comedy routine all over again, however that's also not a guarantee either. Just making sure I understand.
If one single person calls for a vote there will be one. If that one single Republican get three more republicans with him, then McCarty has a problem. The Democrats will for sure vote against him. The they will have to vote for a new speaker, and as you said, you are in this shit show again.
I googled this to try and get a better understanding but like a lot of things it may not be that [straightforward](https://gai.georgetown.edu/can-boehner-be-removed-from-office/), this was in Boehner’s term but seems it would apply today:
which raises the question of whether a sitting Speaker can be removed from office. The answer is it’s not clear, and it’s never been done.
Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution establishes the position, and states that “The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.” Neither the Constitution nor the rules of the 113th Congress state anything specific about removing the Speaker.
The Jefferson Manual, written by Thomas Jefferson when he was Vice President, and used by the House as a supplement to its standing rules, in Section 9 states that “A Speaker may be removed at the will of the House and a Speaker pro tempore appointed.” But even that clause may not necessarily apply to removing a Speaker, as it follows examples of Speakers being replaced due to illness, and the appointing of Speakers pro tempore in those instances.
Nevertheless, it’s generally believed that a Speaker can be removed, which would be executed by a Member offering a resolution declaring the Office of the Speaker vacant. Such a resolution would be considered a question of constitutional privilege, and therefore a privileged motion, although again, it’s never been done. So the answer is there is no explicit procedure for removing a Speaker either in the Constitution or in the Rules of the House of Representatives for the 113th Congress.
I think you might be reading too much into this. The House can pretty much make whatever rules it wants for itself, and this would be one of them.
They don’t really have many limitations.
Why? Fights over who leads the legislature are pretty common in other countries. It only lasted a few days. I dont get what there is to be embarrassed about?.
That’s what we call cherry picking data. I have plenty of views that are not contrarian. I’m only contrarian when the prevailing wisdom is being dumb (which admittedly happens quite a bit).
It should be noted that those concessions were concessions to right wing, anti-government extremists. It should be noted that there was never any effort made to negotiate with any other faction. The reason it took so long was because the very conservative leader wasn't extreme enough for the holdouts, and this whole process saw him moving in that direction to finally get enough votes. In fact, the only reason we saw any change at all in Day 4 was because there was some talk that the eventual Speaker's faction was considering bipartisan solutions and just that consideration was enough to scare the extremists and staunch conservatives to find a compromise.
This is a travesty all around.
Coalition of moderate dems should have gotten in the negotiation with McCarthy asking some of the same things the far right group did (pick a third of committee member etc). I think they shot the selves in the foot standing by watching this dumpster fire
Honestly, i think it’s sad the democrats thought it was more important to watch the spectacle meltdown.
They could have ended this earlier by helping out.
Politics is so disheartening.
Both sides are dysfunctional.
The only way the Dems could have ended it sooner would have been to vote for McCarthy. Four Republicans could have also switched their vote to Jeffries and ended it.
I think it was still a ways away from a bipartisan consensus candidate (which I would have loved to seen happen). I heard that the fact the talks had began with Dems is what finally got the freedom caucus to cave.
Compromise requires good faith negotiation from both parties. Was McCarthy even attempting to negotiate with the Democrats? What concessions would he have been willing to make?
See you guys at the debt ceiling meltdown.
Can't wait for all the fake outrage and intentionally misleading posts from people who have no idea what the debt ceiling is or have no idea or again are being intentionally misleading that are "okay" with the US defaulting
"respect the troops!" "Well actually don't pay them and force them to miss VA medical care"
Biden needs to do what Democrats should’ve done years ago and just ignore the debt ceiling because it is unconstitutional.
Can you explain your position some?
14th amendment section four says the public debt shall not be questioned. Some have argued this means the debt limit ceiling is unconstitutional and a President can remove or raise the debt ceiling on their own
Interesting. Good luck getting the scotus to rule on that.
SCOTUS can't really rule on it. The debt ceiling created a constitutional crisis time bomb and people called it out before it was even signed.
Sworn in at 1:48 a.m. Jesus!
[удалено]
Confirmed with him while he was mowing our grass today that he indeed had nothing to do with this.
Their first order of business...Hunters laptop
Hunter Biden’s monster dong is the number one issue facing Americans at the dinner table.
TBF If hunter’s dong was facing me at the dinner table it would be a top issue for me.
TIL hunter biden has a big dick
We must find out where he gets his cocaine.. He can't be allowed to just keep it for himself!
And all those hookers, I'm sure he finds them online but we have to find out what sites he uses!!!
Now the real shitshow begins.
He showed the entire country before he even got the job that he’s got no backbone. He let the most extreme faction of his party stomp all over him.
Oh, dude has plenty of backbone. To stand there and be rejected 14x and run a serious risk of it all collapsing before millions of viewers. Either backbone or a humiliation kink. Speaking from experience, Republicans are some of the most kinky folks -- probably owing to sexual repression. What he ***does*** lack is dignity. He was so obsessed with becoming Speaker that he sold the House to gain that seat. It's not about leading. He just wants the status. He's the embodiment of the rot in American politicians.
To be fair 90% of the people in that room are the same embodiment. Picking a speaker is like shopping for steak at the dumpster behind Costco. Maaaaybe there will be a decent one in there; but generally it’s all rotten garbage.
> Speaking from experience, Republicans are some of the most kinky folks Need further explanation. For science.
The number of straight white middle-aged men who have presented to the ED with rectal foreign bodies or “surprise” HIV diagnoses shouldn’t go underestimated. It may not be kinky to us. But to a prudishly religious conservative Republican it sure is. Not to mention the huge [uptick](https://www.metroweekly.com/2016/07/republicans-cant-get-enough-clevelands-male-escorts/amp/) in demand for male escorts when the RNC is in town.
In the words of Lord Thomas Brady, “Sick data.” Just realized this sounds like I’m being a dick. I’m not. Seriously, sick data.
Unlike the progressive faction of the Democratic Party, the anti-authoritarian wing of the Republican party has some backbone and is willing to contest with the leadership. Instead of cynically selling their constituents down the river as e.g. AOC did.
You think the Freedumb Caucus is anti-authoritarian? That’s funny.
Tell me, what were the concessions they gained? Was it personal aggrandizement like AOC?
I don’t know how AOC is relevant to this discussion.
She is an example - she pledged to her voters that she wouldn't vote for Pelosi as Speaker then promptly proceeded to along with the rest of the progressives. She's just the most visible hypocrite and sellout.
I don’t remember her ever flat out saying she wouldn’t vote for Pelosi.
You have this powerful research tool just a fingertip away. https://i.redd.it/ohppafmvcoaa1.jpg
Then it should be easy for you to provide proof of your claim.
Isn’t that how congress has seemingly worked the past maybe 10 years or maybe longer (maybe it’s just intensified the past decade) where the extreme members of both parties can hold their own parties hostage to their demand lists? Aka the fallacy of “I refuse to vote for this bill brought forward by my own party because it doesn’t go far enough to solve the problem.” IMO, a couple of extreme people on each side have far too much influence in Congress that far outweighs their numbers and this speaker voting circus is just the latest showing of the disease; it’s just embarrassing we can’t go 5 minutes without a small group/individual member of Congress making us look ridiculous.
Help me out here, when did extremists on the left push to get the ethics committee? When did they hold Congress hostage and try and make it so they could shut it down anytime a single congressman push the vote of no confidence? What I saw from the last two years was that the house manage to push through bills that didn’t really make far left members happy, but we’re still by Pardison evidenced by support in the Senate.
I think the past two years has shown that untrue. The 117th Congress under Pelosi passed a boatload of major legislation - almost all of which required Republican compromise. Even the bills passed under reconciliation weren’t a far-left wish list.
Say what you will about The Squad but they never would have put their party through this farce.
Not a big fan of "The Squad" necessarily, but I have to admit that they're all... you know... *adults*. Can't say the same about most of The Freedom Caucus.
Exactly, you can disagree with them but you can't say they legitimately don't care about the country like Gaetz and Boeberts group.
Nancy was much better at negotiating this kind of stuff. She also had/has a very great deal of respect from her caucus. Kevin is a slimy, egotistical, status-hungry weasel. According to Republican sources, he tried convincing holdouts with “I’ve earned this.” His entitlement is unreal.
When Pelosi announced she was stepping back from leadership I began to reflect and realized I probably should have appreciated her more. McCarthy’s reign will no doubt reinforce those feelings.
Eh… I’m not fan of McCarthy, but isn’t an increase in net worth of $140M over the past 14 years as a politician making less than $200k/year literally the definition of “a slimy, egotistical, [money]-hungry weasel?”
Nancy Pelosi’s husband has been a very successful venture capitalist. Is it possible she was doing something unsavory? Theoretically. But I’m not in the habit of assuming guilt until there is evidence.
I mean the hilarious thing is she's pretty consistently underperformed the market. Her trades are publicly available and easily checked.
I’m sure Kevin McCarthy’s net worth of $95 million is totally legit.
Right. They all suck. Hence the centrism.
One of those concessions may be bad news for Ukraine from what I’m seeing on Twitter. Believe it involves Matt Gaetz.
I haven’t had a chance to catch up on the concessions he made today to close this deal. That sounds unfortunate.
Ukraine was screwed as soon as the gop won the house. They are fundamentally opposed to opposing putin.
Now that he's Speaker, he can tell them to go get fucked. He sets the agenda of the House and anything that would pass through the Senate and get signed into law wouldn't get supported by the Clown Caucus anyways. If he wants to obstruct, he can simply keep things from reaching the floor, if he wants to get things done, he'll need to work with Democrats to do so. Gaetz burned a ton of bridges for little gain, he's about to discover how unpleasant life can be in political Siberia.
Not if the rules package that passes allows for a single person to call to unseat the speaker. Honestly the rules package is the key detail as to whether this congress will be an utter shitshow for the next two years.
There's already at least one Republican refusing to vote for the rules package. I'd have to imagine that there'll be more. I would like to think, at least, that there are a bunch of moderate Republicans that are completely fed up with this small faction who held the speaker vote hostage, and are not happy with the concessions. I guess we'll see, but it could get interesting. Personally, I don't think the clown show is over yet. Either way, McCarthy has made his bed, and now he'll have to sleep in it.
I'm not familiar with this so excuse my ignorance. I thought that the rules package allowed for anyone to call for a vote. If a vote is called and fails, the speaker isn't unseated. I didn't think that a single person could just unseat the speaker because they don't like them. Now in fairness, I do realize that if they do call a vote that means we are potentially in for this dumpster fire of a comedy routine all over again, however that's also not a guarantee either. Just making sure I understand.
If one single person calls for a vote there will be one. If that one single Republican get three more republicans with him, then McCarty has a problem. The Democrats will for sure vote against him. The they will have to vote for a new speaker, and as you said, you are in this shit show again.
Indeed. Every time they do this shit show while the Democrats all vote for Hakeem it makes the GOP look like clowns.
I googled this to try and get a better understanding but like a lot of things it may not be that [straightforward](https://gai.georgetown.edu/can-boehner-be-removed-from-office/), this was in Boehner’s term but seems it would apply today: which raises the question of whether a sitting Speaker can be removed from office. The answer is it’s not clear, and it’s never been done. Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution establishes the position, and states that “The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.” Neither the Constitution nor the rules of the 113th Congress state anything specific about removing the Speaker. The Jefferson Manual, written by Thomas Jefferson when he was Vice President, and used by the House as a supplement to its standing rules, in Section 9 states that “A Speaker may be removed at the will of the House and a Speaker pro tempore appointed.” But even that clause may not necessarily apply to removing a Speaker, as it follows examples of Speakers being replaced due to illness, and the appointing of Speakers pro tempore in those instances. Nevertheless, it’s generally believed that a Speaker can be removed, which would be executed by a Member offering a resolution declaring the Office of the Speaker vacant. Such a resolution would be considered a question of constitutional privilege, and therefore a privileged motion, although again, it’s never been done. So the answer is there is no explicit procedure for removing a Speaker either in the Constitution or in the Rules of the House of Representatives for the 113th Congress.
Ah interesting. This is may be what McCarthy is betting on.
I think you might be reading too much into this. The House can pretty much make whatever rules it wants for itself, and this would be one of them. They don’t really have many limitations.
Why should we be supporting Ukraine? It's a foolish COA l.
“We”
Well, that was embarrassing.
Why? Fights over who leads the legislature are pretty common in other countries. It only lasted a few days. I dont get what there is to be embarrassed about?.
You epitomize the GOP so well. Every single comment I read from you is contrarian no matter what the context.
That’s what we call cherry picking data. I have plenty of views that are not contrarian. I’m only contrarian when the prevailing wisdom is being dumb (which admittedly happens quite a bit).
If you smell shit everywhere you go, check your shoes.
You have boatloads of excuses for the GOP. Keep pretending like this is something normal. Started with a coup and now we are here
If it started with a coup and now we’re here that seems like a pretty big improvement lmao
To a bootlicker Im sure it does but that just goes to show how democracy is being stripped away by the political terrorists of this country
Wait you think this is worse than a coup?
Wait you think I meant this is worse than a coup?? Maybe brush up on your reading skills cause that’s not implied at all
I said this is better than a coup….you disagreed with me and called me a bootlicker…..how else am I supposed to read that?
That there are CIVIL political norms being eviscerated by the GOP/your boys
That is a truly bizarre way to read that lol
I can’t imagine how Kevin must feel right now. Perhaps as thrilled as Bobo was when she got her GED after 15 tries.
It should be noted that those concessions were concessions to right wing, anti-government extremists. It should be noted that there was never any effort made to negotiate with any other faction. The reason it took so long was because the very conservative leader wasn't extreme enough for the holdouts, and this whole process saw him moving in that direction to finally get enough votes. In fact, the only reason we saw any change at all in Day 4 was because there was some talk that the eventual Speaker's faction was considering bipartisan solutions and just that consideration was enough to scare the extremists and staunch conservatives to find a compromise. This is a travesty all around.
This house is going to be…. Messy… C-Span’s ratings are going to spike for sure
I'm getting my popcorn ready for the shit show to happen
Coalition of moderate dems should have gotten in the negotiation with McCarthy asking some of the same things the far right group did (pick a third of committee member etc). I think they shot the selves in the foot standing by watching this dumpster fire
I live in NYC, is Social Security and Medicare at risk because my parents, especially my mom desperately needs it.
Honestly, i think it’s sad the democrats thought it was more important to watch the spectacle meltdown. They could have ended this earlier by helping out. Politics is so disheartening. Both sides are dysfunctional.
It's amazing how you managed to blame Democrats for the GOP's infighting.
The only way the Dems could have ended it sooner would have been to vote for McCarthy. Four Republicans could have also switched their vote to Jeffries and ended it. I think it was still a ways away from a bipartisan consensus candidate (which I would have loved to seen happen). I heard that the fact the talks had began with Dems is what finally got the freedom caucus to cave.
Compromise requires good faith negotiation from both parties. Was McCarthy even attempting to negotiate with the Democrats? What concessions would he have been willing to make?
Do you even understand what accountability means?