House Speaker election/circus/all ages carnival - ongoing coverage

[cytg111]

Equally likely is Bibi allowed it to happen just so he can claim just cause in wiping out Palestinians.

How is that gonna go?

On one side I am reading he is done for cause this clusterfuck happened on his watch, on the other hand nothing to bring about nationalism like a massive terrorist attack on your nation. And Bibi is just the kind of nationalist type to go full fascist isnt he.

 

[NWRMidnight]

lets bring this back to the House circus.
The israli/hamas conflict is not a circus. it's serious

McCarthy flip flops and now doesnt rule out 2nd run for Speaker:

GOP braces for messy fight over speakership as McCarthy doesn’t rule out a return to power | CNN Politics

lite.cnn.com

Of course he flip flops.. technically, that's what got him ousted in the first place.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Two of the shit heads are saying there will be a vote tomorrow. Let’s see what happens.

 

[K1052]

LMAO. Of course they are never going to finish the appropriation bills let alone make it to conference with the Senate.

House Democrats should stuff their discharge petition with a CR through December of 24 plus Ukraine/Israel/Taiwain military aid can call it a legislative year. Let the Rs squabble over the Speaker of the Month club.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1711879993645506644

 

[Puffnstuff]

I expect to get an extended holiday season this year thanks to the giant clown car running Washington.

 

[HomerJS]

I see the default affirmative action of white guy rule is working really well.

Democrats have shown diversity works much better.

 

[K1052]

Looks like Scalise has the edge at the moment and we might, at least for now, be spared the agony of a Jim Jordan speakership.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1712133837830885518

 

[outriding]

Hmmmm. Fairly sure that is how it works kevvy


https://www.npr.org/2023/10/10/1204800569/mccarthy-indicates-he-would-serve-again-as-house-speaker-if-he-could-get-the-vot#:~:text=At%20first%2C%20McCarthy%20said%20he,he%20could%20get%20the%20votes.&text=KEVIN%20MCCARTHY%3A%20That's%20a%20decision%20by%20the%20conference.


At first, McCarthy said he would not run again for speaker. But at a news conference Monday, which was called ostensibly to call for more U.S. support for Israel, the California Republican indicated he would serve again if he could get the votes.

 

[gothuevos]

I don't have any clue how Republicans are going to claw their way out of this hole they've found themselves in. Calling it a shit-show is being kind.

Thank you GOP for projecting such weakness and incompetence to the world in these trying times. Do they even know how to do basic governance?

 

[Jaskalas]

Thank you GOP for projecting such weakness and incompetence to the world in these trying times. Do they even know how to do basic governance?

A trick question. The United States of America is made to be ungovernable, by design.
Our forefathers relied on good men coming together for the betterment of all.
As if that would last.

 

[eelw]

Lol clown show will go for more than 15 votes since Scalise only got 113 votes in secret ballot within party.

 

[HomerJS]

A trick question. The United States of America is made to be ungovernable, by design.
Our forefathers relied on good men coming together for the betterment of all.
As if that would last.

Nancy managed it

 

[Jaskalas]

Nancy managed it

To become speaker, perhaps. But I spoke of governing in general.
And while I can appreciate a lack of chaos and damage when Democrats wrest some control, they never gain enough to affect meaningful positive change.

 

[iRONic]

Nancy managed it

Because she wasn't a good ‘MAN’?

 

[ivwshane]

To become speaker, perhaps. But I spoke of governing in general.
And while I can appreciate a lack of chaos and damage when Democrats wrest some control, they never gain enough to affect meaningful positive change.

That’s demonstrably false. Under Nancy’s leadership we have had very positive and meaningful change including health care reform and infrastructure.

Complaining that that wasn’t good enough or didn’t go far enough is not only is antithetical to the founding fathers design of our government but it makes perfection the enemy of the good and only ensures that “nothing meaningful” will ever get done.

 

[thraashman]

So the open white supremacist Scalise will get the nomination over the sexual assault enabler Jordan. Today's GOP everyone!

 

[K1052]

Looks like Scalise it is.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1712170856237945149

 

[Pens1566]

Unlikely that it would be someone so junior.

I'm betting it's Scalise.

<cough>

 

[eelw]

The 8 that voted to oust, sounds like all voted for Jordan and unlikely to change their mind. They won’t do a vote today because they are trying to get Dem votes. 🤣🤣🤣

 

[K1052]

lmao

https://twitter.com/x/status/1712184653996564577

 

[Saylick]

A trick question. The United States of America is made to be ungovernable, by design.
Our forefathers relied on good men coming together for the betterment of all.
As if that would last.

As Madison said succinctly, the US government was set up so that "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition". The issue is that the Founding Fathers assumed that the ambition from all sides would be towards benefiting the people. It doesn't work when one side's ambition is literally to prove that the government doesn't work.

 

[fskimospy]

As Madison said succinctly, the US government was set up so that "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition". The issue is that the Founding Fathers assumed that the ambition from all sides would be towards benefiting the people. It doesn't work when one side's ambition is literally to prove that the government doesn't work.

I think the larger mistake was Madison thought the ambition would be for Congress to dominate the presidency or vice versa. In practice it is purely party based. Congress doesn’t remove obvious criminal Trump who is openly defying their oversight because Republicans want to protect the party more than the powers of Congress.

This is one of the main reasons why in my opinion the US will turn into some sort of effective autocracy, probably within my lifetime. (The other being split legitimacy)

 

[HomerJS]

To become speaker, perhaps. But I spoke of governing in general.
And while I can appreciate a lack of chaos and damage when Democrats wrest some control, they never gain enough to affect meaningful positive change.

Because of who? I would say Medicare being able to negotiate drug prices is a meaningful change.

 

[fskimospy]

Because of who? I would say Medicare being able to negotiate drug prices is a meaningful change.

I think people wildly overestimate how much federal policy will personally affect them. It means a lot for the country as a whole. You personally, generally not.

 

[pmv]

I think the larger mistake was Madison thought the ambition would be for Congress to dominate the presidency or vice versa. In practice it is purely party based. Congress doesn’t remove obvious criminal Trump who is openly defying their oversight because Republicans want to protect the party more than the powers of Congress.

I find it intriguing to wonder about how the world looked to those founders. The simple fact that they didn't like the idea of political parties (and didn't expect such a system to take hold?) makes me think that they really had a very different experience of the world than the one we have. I gather (from what I read on the History Channel site!) that they thought political parties were an effect of monarchical systems and would just not exist in a proper democracy. I find it very hard to get my head around the worldview that would lead one to think that.

I mean, isn't it obvious that different demographic groups (social class, race, town vs country...) will have different interests and in a democracy will band together with parties to fight their corner, monarchy or not? Yet somehow their formative experiences (of the not-terribly-democratic system of 18th century Britain) caused them not to see things like that. Was it just over-optimistic idealism? "Hey, under our shiny new democracy, everyone will behave much better"? Or was it just a lack of diversity among them as a group - they didn't see clashes of interest because they were all part of the same demographic?