Politics have degraded to the point where people think having enough votes to create gridlock is the same thing as a mandate.
McCarthy getting speaker?
151,741 Views |
2450 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by lil99chris
I don't want mandates. I want politicians working to earn our votes. I want politicians working for their constituents rather than self-interest.
This is a step in the right direction. Hopefully it gets a foothold.
This is a step in the right direction. Hopefully it gets a foothold.
My attitude on this is the gameplan is gridlock for two more years. House investigations mount to nothing unless the media and DOJ are your lapdogs. The GOPe only care about looking like they are doing something, not actually doing anything.
So I'd just as soon see a slow trainwreck here. More of the same isn't helping America
So I'd just as soon see a slow trainwreck here. More of the same isn't helping America
Should nominate Ben Carson.Straight Talk said:
Can a non member of the House be Speaker?
Asking for a friend. DJT!
Oh, gridlock is all we are going to see from this House. If McCarthy somehow gets his ass elected, he is going to have to make so many concessions that he will be effectively neutered (maybe he already is). Democrats will vote as a block, but the GOP will be fractured and no vote of any kind will pass. Donks will be happy to sit back, eat popcorn, and watch the GOP take the blame.dreyOO said:
My attitude on this is the gameplan is gridlock for two more years. House investigations mount to nothing unless the media and DOJ are your lapdogs. The GOPe only care about looking like they are doing something, not actually doing anything.
So I'd just as soon see a slow trainwreck here. More of the same isn't helping America
It would depend if they vote on the rule changes first. That's one of the rules that would change, and it would make it to where any member can call for the motion to vacate. Personally I like anything that makes it easier to remove a turd that is in a leadership position.
Straight Talk said:
Can a non member of the House be Speaker?
Asking for a friend. DJT!
Yes. And this would be a terrible idea.
Nothing that passes the House will get through the Senate anyway.torrid said:Oh, gridlock is all we are going to see from this House. If McCarthy somehow gets his ass elected, he is going to have to make so many concessions that he will be effectively neutered (maybe he already is). Democrats will vote as a block, but the GOP will be fractured and no vote of any kind will pass. Donks will be happy to sit back, eat popcorn, and watch the GOP take the blame.dreyOO said:
My attitude on this is the gameplan is gridlock for two more years. House investigations mount to nothing unless the media and DOJ are your lapdogs. The GOPe only care about looking like they are doing something, not actually doing anything.
So I'd just as soon see a slow trainwreck here. More of the same isn't helping America
HTownAg98 said:
It would depend if they vote on the rule changes first. That's one of the rules that would change, and it would make it to where any member can call for the motion to vacate. Personally I like anything that makes it easier to remove a turd that is in a leadership position.
The same turds that will never vote for term-limits upon themselves will never allow this. They're in it for self-enrichment, not the good of the country or the governed.
If you are a fan of freedom, you should be thankful that a few principled and liberty-minded individuals are willing to go against the flow and gridlock the system to push for freedom.torrid said:
Politics have degraded to the point where people think having enough votes to create gridlock is the same thing as a mandate.
Politics have degraded to the point where people think not having enough votes to become Speaker is the same thing as a mandate.torrid said:
Politics have degraded to the point where people think having enough votes to create gridlock is the same thing as a mandate.
fka ftc said:
Just heard that the rules used to be one person could challenge the speakership and call for a vote for a new one. This was used to bully Boehner and Ryan so Nancy said no ****ing way and changed it to what it is now.
Ds are doing no favors with their communication strategy on this. That is perhaps the biggest failure over the last few days. Letting the Dems continue to control the narrative.
When your opposition is fighting amongst themselves, it's best to just sit back with your popcorn and adult beverage and let them have at it. Republicans did the same thing when Pelosi was having to deal with the squad.
It will be gridlock so the only thing they can do is form the right committees to expose the Democrats, not sure McCarthy will do that, as do the 20.
1872walker said:HTownAg98 said:
It would depend if they vote on the rule changes first. That's one of the rules that would change, and it would make it to where any member can call for the motion to vacate. Personally I like anything that makes it easier to remove a turd that is in a leadership position.
The same turds that will never vote for term-limits upon themselves will never allow this. They're in it for self-enrichment, not the good of the country or the governed.
It was like that until it changed with Pelosi. It's already written into the draft rules, and is a condition the Freedom Caucus has insisted upon.
BSLMCane said:
Rep. Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin and other House Republicans who work on military and intelligence matters said the protracted speaker's race is starting to impact national security planning since some security clearances are contingent on lawmakers being sworn in.
During a news conference Wednesday, Gallagher and other members of the House Republican caucus who are military veterans and firmly in McCarthy's camp in his bid for speaker said they would usually use the sensitive compartmented information facility, or SCIF, to receive daily briefs about threats around the world but no longer have access. Gallagher also said the drawn-out election for speaker has prevented him from meeting with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs in the facility.
"I'm informed by House Security that, technically, I don't have a clearance," Gallagher said. "I'm a member of the Intel Committee, I'm on the Armed Services Committee, and I can't meet in the SCIF to conduct essential business."
Rep.-elect Derrick Van Orden said: "We're trying to make sure that we can do the people's will, and a minority of our party has decided that they want to continue with this obstructionism. And it's actually becoming detrimental to our nation."
"Democrats will vote as a block, but the GOP will be fractured and no vote of any kind will pass. Donks will be happy to sit back, eat popcorn, and watch the GOP take the blame."
This so easily could have been avoided. Given Biden's unpopularity, the state of the economy, inflation, Afghanistan, etc., the midterms should have been a cakewalk for the GOP. Infighting and extremism turned off the swing voters and we have this mess. And the GOP has shown it has not learned it's lesson by doubling down.
I realize that will not be a popular take on here, but it's factual.
This so easily could have been avoided. Given Biden's unpopularity, the state of the economy, inflation, Afghanistan, etc., the midterms should have been a cakewalk for the GOP. Infighting and extremism turned off the swing voters and we have this mess. And the GOP has shown it has not learned it's lesson by doubling down.
I realize that will not be a popular take on here, but it's factual.
Much like with Covid, they're using fear to govern. That's the most powerful emotion and their easiest path to control over the governed.
Surely you don't believe this nonsense?LMCane said:
Rep. Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin and other House Republicans who work on military and intelligence matters said the protracted speaker's race is starting to impact national security planning since some security clearances are contingent on lawmakers being sworn in.
During a news conference Wednesday, Gallagher and other members of the House Republican caucus who are military veterans and firmly in McCarthy's camp in his bid for speaker said they would usually use the sensitive compartmented information facility, or SCIF, to receive daily briefs about threats around the world but no longer have access. Gallagher also said the drawn-out election for speaker has prevented him from meeting with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs in the facility.
"I'm informed by House Security that, technically, I don't have a clearance," Gallagher said. "I'm a member of the Intel Committee, I'm on the Armed Services Committee, and I can't meet in the SCIF to conduct essential business."
Rep.-elect Derrick Van Orden said: "We're trying to make sure that we can do the people's will, and a minority of our party has decided that they want to continue with this obstructionism. And it's actually becoming detrimental to our nation."
And vice versa. Which is why we need someone not named McCarthy. McCarthy will extend an olive branch to the Senate dems. I want someone that will tell Senate dems to go **** themselvesredcrayon said:Nothing that passes the House will get through the Senate anyway.torrid said:Oh, gridlock is all we are going to see from this House. If McCarthy somehow gets his ass elected, he is going to have to make so many concessions that he will be effectively neutered (maybe he already is). Democrats will vote as a block, but the GOP will be fractured and no vote of any kind will pass. Donks will be happy to sit back, eat popcorn, and watch the GOP take the blame.dreyOO said:
My attitude on this is the gameplan is gridlock for two more years. House investigations mount to nothing unless the media and DOJ are your lapdogs. The GOPe only care about looking like they are doing something, not actually doing anything.
So I'd just as soon see a slow trainwreck here. More of the same isn't helping America
And Speakers typically serve for a long time. I don't want McCarthy in charge in 2025 in case we do own the Senate (and maybe prez). I want a principled conservative.
Absolutely.Irish 2.0 said:And vice versa. Which is why wer need someone not named McCarthy. McCarthy will extend an olive branch to the Senate dems. I want someone that will tell Senate dems to go **** themselvesredcrayon said:Nothing that passes the House will get through the Senate anyway.torrid said:Oh, gridlock is all we are going to see from this House. If McCarthy somehow gets his ass elected, he is going to have to make so many concessions that he will be effectively neutered (maybe he already is). Democrats will vote as a block, but the GOP will be fractured and no vote of any kind will pass. Donks will be happy to sit back, eat popcorn, and watch the GOP take the blame.dreyOO said:
My attitude on this is the gameplan is gridlock for two more years. House investigations mount to nothing unless the media and DOJ are your lapdogs. The GOPe only care about looking like they are doing something, not actually doing anything.
So I'd just as soon see a slow trainwreck here. More of the same isn't helping America
He does.
aggiedent said:
"Democrats will vote as a block, but the GOP will be fractured and no vote of any kind will pass. Donks will be happy to sit back, eat popcorn, and watch the GOP take the blame."
This so easily could have been avoided. Given Biden's unpopularity, the state of the economy, inflation, Afghanistan, etc., the midterms should have been a cakewalk for the GOP. Infighting and extremism turned off the swing voters and we have this mess. And the GOP has shown it has not learned it's lesson by doubling down.
I realize that will not be a popular take on here, but it's factual.
[You can make your point without the vulgarity -- Staff]
10-4
What are they to do? Continue accepting the same garbage and just throw their hands up in the air and capitulate for eternity
The alternative is the same old stuff. Is that what you want? More of the same? Or do you want a balanced budget, secured border, and some promises by the speaker to actually be conservative?torrid said:
Politics have degraded to the point where people think having enough votes to create gridlock is the same thing as a mandate.
We aren't getting a balanced budget or secure border controlling just the house.
My bad. Misread
Ellis Wyatt said:Imagine that there are doofuses who actually wanted this guy to be president.lb3 said:lb3 said:
Remember who the establishment wanted for president in 2016?
First it was Jeb Bush and when he flamed out they got behind John Kasich. They don't know their base.A block of House Republicans should get together with Democrats to pick a speaker to run a coalition government, which will moderate the House and marginalize the extremists.
— John Kasich (@JohnKasich) January 3, 2023
Seriously? This tweet is coming from the turd in the punchbowl who wouldn't drop out of the 2016 GOP Primary when he had absolutely no path to winning it.
Not factual at all. Swing voters aren't paying attention to this at all. They don't watch Hannity or Maddow. They don't give a rats ass about any of this.aggiedent said:
"Democrats will vote as a block, but the GOP will be fractured and no vote of any kind will pass. Donks will be happy to sit back, eat popcorn, and watch the GOP take the blame."
This so easily could have been avoided. Given Biden's unpopularity, the state of the economy, inflation, Afghanistan, etc., the midterms should have been a cakewalk for the GOP. Infighting and extremism turned off the swing voters and we have this mess. And the GOP has shown it has not learned it's lesson by doubling down.
I realize that will not be a popular take on here, but it's factual.
Besides, getting the base out is vastly more important than getting out the swing vote. Swing votes get off their ass when something big happens in their life that makes them want to vote for or against the current regime. Nothing the house was doing in January 2023 will effect that. But, if the GOP finally starts acting like conservatives, the base will get off their ass and reward them with a crap-ton of votes.
Depends upon if you agree with the 20 or so people creating the gridlock. I think there may be a large segment of the population with moderate views who are concerned about the impact of the gridlock.aTmAg said:If you are a fan of freedom, you should be thankful that a few principled and liberty-minded individuals are willing to go against the flow and gridlock the system to push for freedom.torrid said:
Politics have degraded to the point where people think having enough votes to create gridlock is the same thing as a mandate.
torrid said:Depends upon if you agree with the 20 or so people creating the gridlock. I think there may be a large segment of the population with moderate views who are concerned about the impact of the gridlock.aTmAg said:If you are a fan of freedom, you should be thankful that a few principled and liberty-minded individuals are willing to go against the flow and gridlock the system to push for freedom.torrid said:
Politics have degraded to the point where people think having enough votes to create gridlock is the same thing as a mandate.
By standing on principle they are creating gridlock? I'm curious about your opinion of the American Revolution, abolition and a host of other issues throughout history.
I guess what they should be asking themselves is why they are creating gridlock and is that what their constituents want1872walker said:torrid said:Depends upon if you agree with the 20 or so people creating the gridlock. I think there may be a large segment of the population with moderate views who are concerned about the impact of the gridlock.aTmAg said:If you are a fan of freedom, you should be thankful that a few principled and liberty-minded individuals are willing to go against the flow and gridlock the system to push for freedom.torrid said:
Politics have degraded to the point where people think having enough votes to create gridlock is the same thing as a mandate.
By standing on principle they are creating gridlock?
Charpie said:I guess what they should be asking themselves is why they are creating gridlock and is that what their constituents want1872walker said:torrid said:Depends upon if you agree with the 20 or so people creating the gridlock. I think there may be a large segment of the population with moderate views who are concerned about the impact of the gridlock.aTmAg said:If you are a fan of freedom, you should be thankful that a few principled and liberty-minded individuals are willing to go against the flow and gridlock the system to push for freedom.torrid said:
Politics have degraded to the point where people think having enough votes to create gridlock is the same thing as a mandate.
By standing on principle they are creating gridlock?
Ending the uni-party and saving interests of the American people rather than self-enrichment of career politicians?
That's not gridlock, that's standing up to the establishment.
But is that what their constituents want?
Have they asked their constituents?
Being a constituent of Michael Cloud, whom is opposed to McCarthy, yes...Yes it isCharpie said:I guess what they should be asking themselves is why they are creating gridlock and is that what their constituents want1872walker said:torrid said:Depends upon if you agree with the 20 or so people creating the gridlock. I think there may be a large segment of the population with moderate views who are concerned about the impact of the gridlock.aTmAg said:If you are a fan of freedom, you should be thankful that a few principled and liberty-minded individuals are willing to go against the flow and gridlock the system to push for freedom.torrid said:
Politics have degraded to the point where people think having enough votes to create gridlock is the same thing as a mandate.
By standing on principle they are creating gridlock?
Featured Stories
See All
As A&M's QB1, Reed tasked with replicating QB production of the past
by Olin Buchanan
11:28
2h ago
735
44:36
58m ago
520
Reed Report: Donald Sloan remembers his iconic dunk on the Brazos
by Luke Evangelist
31:55
5h ago
645
Pick 'Em & Rip 'Em sponsored by PrizePicks: Week 17
by Matthew Dawson
Presenting Texas Aggies United's Aggies in Vegas Sweepstakes!
by Texas Aggies United
Legalize-It-Ags
State of Louisiana funneling money to NIL for LSU
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
160
TAMUHighlights
State of Louisiana funneling money to NIL for LSU
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
100