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

[Pens1566]

They're going to do this again tomorrow at noon apparently. Jordan still says he thinks he's going to be speaker. Based on what neither he nor I have any idea.

I think he's going to get less votes again.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

They're going to do this again tomorrow at noon apparently. Jordan still says he thinks he's going to be speaker. Based on what neither he nor I have any idea.

Same here

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I think he's going to get less votes again.

And that is possible

 

[Muse]

They're going to do this again tomorrow at noon apparently. Jordan still says he thinks he's going to be speaker. Based on what neither he nor I have any idea.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

 

[K1052]

I think he's going to get less votes again.

Seems likely!

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

(Jordan)
I know how to make them like me, we just threaten the wives of those that won't vote for me...
View attachment 87368

https://www.meidastouch.com/news/maga-goons-threaten-wives-of-anti-jordan-republicans

Seriously? Calling Mom? What kind of fucking joke is this.

 

[BoomerD]

Since the Republicans can't seem to find a suitable candidate for Speaker...how about putting Nancy Pelosi back in the job she did so well?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Since the Republicans can't seem to find a suitable candidate for Speaker...how about putting Nancy Pelosi back in the job she did so well?

Works for me. By conservative logic a Pelosi leadership led to a Republican majority so they should be all for it.

 

[hal2kilo]

That's the best government that money can buy.

Yep. Financed by clicks on the internet instead of, I hate saying this, more reasonable and status quo lobbies. They be crazy as they wanna be.

 

[Dave_5k]

I don't think the Dems will break history to vote for a moderate Republican speaker, nor will Repubs be willing to nominate such a person.

However, the Dems might support a vote to change House Rules to give the current pro tempore speaker the full authority of the House Speakership until the next election. Except technically I don't think the pro-temp speaker can even bring such a vote to the floor under current house rules (even kicking Nancy out of her office could and perhaps should have been ignored by Nancy as outside of the pro-temp speaker's authority).

But on the other hand, House Rules are simply whatever the majority of the House decides that they are...

 

[Dave_5k]

Seriously? Calling Mom? What kind of fucking joke is this.

Team Jordan is circulating contact information for spouses and staff - egging on widespread violent threats (with an assist from Fox News) - for anyone that dared vote against him. Three more examples this afternoon:

1) Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.) said that opposition to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) is “profound” and that the members who are against him do not want anything but rather are against him on principle. He says Jordan’s tactics, which some have called “House of Cards,” are more “House of Shards.”
“All I can tell you is that the tactics that they have employed against me, the publishing of my office phone number, and the messages, whether it’s conservative media or anybody else, this is all a result of going after people who do not basically represent the viewpoint of a whole lot of hardcore right-wing conservatives.”
He said his staff has been “cussed out, they’ve been threatened … it’s been nonstop. Most of them are out-of-state calls.”

2) Rep. Kay Granger (R-Tex.) twice voted for Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) to become speaker, even though he is not actively seeking the job. She said Scalise was “an honorable man,” and she voted her conscience.
She added, “Intimidation and threats will not change my position,” alluding to the pressure tactics reportedly employed by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and his allies.

3) Rep. Jen A. Kiggans (R-Va.) twice voted against Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) by voting for the last speaker, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).
Kiggans, a former helicopter pilot in the Navy, wrote on social media that “threats and intimidation tactics will not change my principles and values,” alluding to the pressure that Jordan and his allies have put on holdouts.

 

[woolfe9998]

Can't confirm yet, but I'm hearing reports that some of Jordan's GOP opponents have purposefully held back their "no's" so that they can show that Jordan loses votes every time he calls a new one. So what we should expect is that he'll do worse on the next, and worse still after that.

 

[fskimospy]

Can't confirm yet, but I'm hearing reports that some of Jordan's GOP opponents have purposefully held back their "no's" so that they can show that Jordan loses votes every time he calls a new one. So what we should expect is that he'll do worse on the next, and worse still after that.

It does seem like Gym isn’t going to muster the votes. His awful politics aside he’s 1) an enabler of sex crime and 2) an unserious legislator.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Team Jordan is circulating contact information for spouses and staff - egging on widespread violent threats (with an assist from Fox News) - for anyone that dared vote against him. Three more examples this afternoon:

1) Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.) said that opposition to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) is “profound” and that the members who are against him do not want anything but rather are against him on principle. He says Jordan’s tactics, which some have called “House of Cards,” are more “House of Shards.”
“All I can tell you is that the tactics that they have employed against me, the publishing of my office phone number, and the messages, whether it’s conservative media or anybody else, this is all a result of going after people who do not basically represent the viewpoint of a whole lot of hardcore right-wing conservatives.”
He said his staff has been “cussed out, they’ve been threatened … it’s been nonstop. Most of them are out-of-state calls.”

2) Rep. Kay Granger (R-Tex.) twice voted for Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) to become speaker, even though he is not actively seeking the job. She said Scalise was “an honorable man,” and she voted her conscience.
She added, “Intimidation and threats will not change my position,” alluding to the pressure tactics reportedly employed by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and his allies.

3) Rep. Jen A. Kiggans (R-Va.) twice voted against Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) by voting for the last speaker, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).
Kiggans, a former helicopter pilot in the Navy, wrote on social media that “threats and intimidation tactics will not change my principles and values,” alluding to the pressure that Jordan and his allies have put on holdouts.

Every single one of them should be arrested for brandishing and conspiracy.

 

[fskimospy]

Every single one of them should be arrested for brandishing and conspiracy.

Wait - you want to arrest people for saying if a legislator votes the wrong way they will be voted out?

Publishing of personal info is not criminal and shouldn’t be. It’s shitty, but not criminal.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Wait - you want to arrest people for saying if a legislator votes the wrong way they will be voted out?

Publishing of personal info is not criminal and shouldn’t be. It’s shitty, but not criminal.

It is if you're publishing it to a sector of the population known for threats and violence against those being published about. Would you be cool with publishing personal info of every black public figure on say, truth social? Ukrainian sympathizers in Russia on Twitter?

The problem is the threats, not the claim of consequence.

 

[Dave_5k]

Wait - you want to arrest people for saying if a legislator votes the wrong way they will be voted out?

Publishing of personal info is not criminal and shouldn’t be. It’s shitty, but not criminal.

Threats of physical harm are a crime in most jurisdictions (in D.C. it is a misdemeanor assault, they face a fine of up to $1000, up to six months in jail, or both.)

 

[fskimospy]

Threats of physical harm are a crime in most jurisdictions (in D.C. it is a misdemeanor assault, they face a fine of up to $1000, up to six months in jail, or both.)

Yes but they have to be direct threats. Publishing someone’s address is not that.

 

[Dave_5k]

It is if you're publishing it to a sector of the population known for threats and violence against those being published about. Would you be cool with publishing personal info of every black public figure on say, truth social? Ukrainian sympathizers in Russia on Twitter?

At very least, those publishing info should be considered accomplices in the resulting assault charges for those that actually make such threats (if the police bothered filing such arrests)

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Yes but they have to be direct threats. Publishing someone’s address is not that.

It is if you have reason to believe threat or harm will come to them, that's willful intent.

 

[fskimospy]

It is if you have reason to believe threat or harm will come to them, that's willful intent.

I hear you, and I agree, but that’s a tough hill to climb.

 

[woolfe9998]

It does seem like Gym isn’t going to muster the votes. His awful politics aside he’s 1) an enabler of sex crime and 2) an unserious legislator.

He's never been the main sponsor of a single piece of legislation in his entire time in Congress. All he does is say bad things about democrats. Has he ever even done anything else?

The real question is where do we go from here. I said upthread that the most likely outcome is going to be one involving getting some dem votes. Unthinkable though this may be to many republicans, I don't see them as having any other choice. If there is major dysfunction in Congress another year because they can't elect a speaker, they're going to get blamed in the elections come 11/24. Can you imagine if they can't even get an Israeli aid package through, given how pro-Israel most republicans are?

My bet is that we're going to end up with an R pro tempore with expanded powers, and that he will just keep getting his term extended, until either the repugs win more seats or lose the House.

 

[Muse]

It is if you're publishing it to a sector of the population known for threats and violence against those being published about. Would you be cool with publishing personal info of every black public figure on say, truth social? Ukrainian sympathizers in Russia on Twitter?

The problem is the threats, not the claim of consequence.

"A truth told with bad intent beats all the lies you can invent." - William Blake

 

[fskimospy]

It is if you're publishing it to a sector of the population known for threats and violence against those being published about. Would you be cool with publishing personal info of every black public figure on say, truth social? Ukrainian sympathizers in Russia on Twitter?

The problem is the threats, not the claim of consequence.

This is pretty serious first amendment stuff and broadly speaking, yes.

The first amendment is one of our founding principles and sometimes it leads to bad shit.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

This is pretty serious first amendment stuff and broadly speaking, yes.

The first amendment is one of our founding principles and sometimes it leads to bad shit.

It's also got limits. If I tell someone to kill a third party and they do it, I'm not protected by the first amendment. It doesn't work that way.