McCarthy getting speaker?

151,699 Views | 2450 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by lil99chris
1872walker
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Gigem314 • 3:47p, 1/6/23
Gigem314 said:
Adam87inSA said:
Gigem314 said:
Dan Scott said:
the concessions received per politico

Quote:
1. Only one House member needed to file a motion to "vacate the chair"
2. Freedom Caucus members having a few seats on the House Rules Committee that will allow those members to leverage certain criteria behind voting for bills.
3. Voting on a bill setting term limits for members of Congress
4. Individual votes on each of the 12 appropriations bills and excluding earmarks from such bills
5. A vote on legislation surrounding border security
6. 72-hour notice from release of legislation before voting on it
7. A vote on a balanced budget amendment
So much for McCarthy brokering a deal with the dems.

That is a productive set of concessions. With Chip Roy on board now, it seems a waste of time to drag this out further.
Yep. Time to make nice and focus on the greater adversary, the Dems.


Our government is two sides of the same coin. They all pal around together and perform theater for the American people while they bend us over
Reply Quote
11
RGLAG85
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to winmck • 3:49p, 1/6/23
AG
winmck said:
98PercenterAg said:
Dan Scott said:
the concessions received per politico

Quote:
1. Only one House member needed to file a motion to "vacate the chair"
2. Freedom Caucus members having a few seats on the House Rules Committee that will allow those members to leverage certain criteria behind voting for bills.
3. Voting on a bill setting term limits for members of Congress
4. Individual votes on each of the 12 appropriations bills and excluding earmarks from such bills
5. A vote on legislation surrounding border security
6. 72-hour notice from release of legislation before voting on it
7. A vote on a balanced budget amendment
Pretty solid list of demands from Roy & Co. I do notice the word amendment missing from #3, which as I understand one would be required?


As I understand it, yes you are correct. I'm all for term limits but this is more political theater.
It's only political theater because we now have the uniparty. This is what is so disgustingly troublesome.

And, McCarthy is the poster child.
Reply Quote
6
1 edit
RGLAG85
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to [removed post] • 3:52p, 1/6/23
AG
C@LAg said:
as i declared in the mod-deleted post from 48 hours ago.... this would be over by EOD on Friday and McCarthy was going to be speaker.

the end result was never in doubt
the swamp wins. always.

see: Party, Tea
and now: Gaetz, Matt

The federal government is compromised for good at this point, and no longer represents the people but itself.

Now, will Gaetz be a man of his word and resign like he promised?
or will he claim "we won concessions, so I no longer have to resign".

That's not what he said. That is a complete mischaracterization!
Reply Quote
21
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to [removed post] • 3:54p, 1/6/23
Quote:
Now, will Gaetz be a man of his word and resign like he promised?
or will he claim "we won concessions, so I no longer have to resign".
You're completely making that up.
Reply Quote
22
lb3
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 1872walker • 3:54p, 1/6/23
AG
1872walker said:
C@LAg said:
1872walker said:
That's the entire reason for the single-member motion to vacate the speaker's chair.
which is non-binding.
the majority can agree to ignore it at any point.
these are concessions. not laws. they exist at the whims of those actually in "power".


Once approved, the Rules are binding for that Congress.
Binding until someone calls a point of order seeking to nullify the motion. The parliamentarian will then uphold the motion per the rules set forth for that congress. The chair will then ask the house to confirm the parliamentarian's decision and the motion can then be overturned by a simple majority.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
Charpie
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to lb3 • 3:55p, 1/6/23
AG
lb3 said:
1872walker said:
C@LAg said:
1872walker said:
That's the entire reason for the single-member motion to vacate the speaker's chair.
which is non-binding.
the majority can agree to ignore it at any point.
these are concessions. not laws. they exist at the whims of those actually in "power".


Once approved, the Rules are binding for that Congress.
Binding until someone calls a point of order seeking to nullify the motion. The parliamentarian will then uphold the motion per the rules set forth for that congress. The chair will then ask the house to confirm the parliamentarian's decision and the motion can then be overturned by a simple majority.
Reply Quote
2
Rodney Ruxin
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggie93 • 3:57p, 1/6/23
aggie93 said:
Rodney Ruxin said:
Quote:
When you simply ignore how the world works don't be surprised you can't get the changes you want. BTW, one of Trump's biggest flaws is he didn't understand how DC worked and it sunk him over and over again. You have to know how to play the game in order to win it.
The only way to return to anything resembling a functional constitutional republic is to remove power from D.C. The corruption is so long-standing and so deep, you aren't going to get any meaningful change by electing the Trump's of the world. We don't need different people in Washington. Well we do, but that's not a realistic goal, the system has literally been designed to keep people with goodwill away from holding any legitimate power. Literally the only way forward is removing power.
So your argument is things are so broken that we can't win within the current system and by electing the right people. Ok, only 3 ways to get that then. First is a Convention of States and then for it to go the way you want. Second is a Revolution/Civil War that overthrows the government. Third is secession.

First is a pipe dream that will fail. Way too many socialists to ever agree to a real improvement of the Constitution.

Second is insane.

Third has promise but it's complicated and risky on its own.

Otherwise you are just wishcasting that the world doesn't work the way you want. That's great for Stars but that's about it.

Regardless of how it's done, and I don't want any kind of war FYI, if we don't find a way to SIGNIFICANTLY reduce the amount of power the federal government currently has...... then yes we are f***ed. But f***ed doesn't necessarily mean forever. It could mean we are headed for a hard reset, which don't get me wrong would completely suck. Who knows what happens after that though. I would be blowing smoke up my own ass to pretend I have any idea what scenario is more likely to occur over another after that.

I'm just telling you that trying to elect different politicians to make any kind of MEANINGFUL change in the current system is absolutely a pipe dream. We will only continue to slide, the only thing that is moderately variable is the pace. Rearranging chairs on the Titanic at this point.

We are currently at $247,000 in debt per taxpayer and we show literally no sign of slowing down. It's pure insanity. One day it will be time to pay the piper. And that's completely ignoring the myriad of cultural issues that have been driven by different factions trying to wield increasing levels state power over each other instead of realizing that it's the exercise of that power itself that is the problem.

At this point, I do think the long-term "best bad choice" is a divorce. How that logistically goes down, I don't know. And I take zero joy in saying it whatsoever, it's never something I would choose unless it were the last possible option to retain a functioning free society. I fear we are headed towards that point. Just imo obviously.
Reply Quote
5
4 edits
samurai_science
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to lb3 • 3:58p, 1/6/23
lb3 said:
1872walker said:
C@LAg said:
1872walker said:
That's the entire reason for the single-member motion to vacate the speaker's chair.
which is non-binding.
the majority can agree to ignore it at any point.
these are concessions. not laws. they exist at the whims of those actually in "power".


Once approved, the Rules are binding for that Congress.
Binding until someone calls a point of order seeking to nullify the motion. The parliamentarian will then uphold the motion per the rules set forth for that congress. The chair will then ask the house to confirm the parliamentarian's decision and the motion can then be overturned by a simple majority.
I guess we do nothing then and let the Democrats keep the rule changes. Or the 20 or so fight to change the rule like they have done and hold the Speaker accountable.
Reply Quote
4
1872walker
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to lb3 • 3:59p, 1/6/23
lb3 said:
1872walker said:
C@LAg said:
1872walker said:
That's the entire reason for the single-member motion to vacate the speaker's chair.
which is non-binding.
the majority can agree to ignore it at any point.
these are concessions. not laws. they exist at the whims of those actually in "power".


Once approved, the Rules are binding for that Congress.
Binding until someone calls a point of order seeking to nullify the motion. The parliamentarian will then uphold the motion per the rules set forth for that congress. The chair will then ask the house to confirm the parliamentarian's decision and the motion can then be overturned by a simple majority.


And the Freedom Caucus shuts that down post haste.
Reply Quote
2
Owlagdad
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 98PercenterAg • 4:02p, 1/6/23
98PercenterAg said:
Dan Scott said:
the concessions received per politico

Quote:
1. Only one House member needed to file a motion to "vacate the chair"
2. Freedom Caucus members having a few seats on the House Rules Committee that will allow those members to leverage certain criteria behind voting for bills.
3. Voting on a bill setting term limits for members of Congress
4. Individual votes on each of the 12 appropriations bills and excluding earmarks from such bills
5. A vote on legislation surrounding border security
6. 72-hour notice from release of legislation before voting on it
7. A vote on a balanced budget amendment
Pretty solid list of demands from Roy & Co. I do notice the word amendment missing from #3, which as I understand one would be required?
yes. Levin covered this last night.
Reply Quote
3
lb3
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to samurai_science • 4:05p, 1/6/23
AG
samurai_science said:
lb3 said:
1872walker said:
C@LAg said:
1872walker said:
That's the entire reason for the single-member motion to vacate the speaker's chair.
which is non-binding.
the majority can agree to ignore it at any point.
these are concessions. not laws. they exist at the whims of those actually in "power".


Once approved, the Rules are binding for that Congress.
Binding until someone calls a point of order seeking to nullify the motion. The parliamentarian will then uphold the motion per the rules set forth for that congress. The chair will then ask the house to confirm the parliamentarian's decision and the motion can then be overturned by a simple majority.
I guess we do nothing then and let the Democrats keep the rule changes. Or the 20 or so fight to change the rule like they have done and hold the Speaker accountable.
I was making no claims as to the wisdom of any position. Just that parliamentary rules are easy to bypass. If you have 50%+1 votes. In the Senate that process is called the 'Nuclear Option'.
Reply Quote
1
Tea Party
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to RGLAG85 • 4:54p, 1/6/23
RGLAG85 said:
aggie93 said:
Rodney Ruxin said:
Quote:
When you simply ignore how the world works don't be surprised you can't get the changes you want. BTW, one of Trump's biggest flaws is he didn't understand how DC worked and it sunk him over and over again. You have to know how to play the game in order to win it.
The only way to return to anything resembling a functional constitutional republic is to remove power from D.C. The corruption is so long-standing and so deep, you aren't going to get any meaningful change by electing the Trump's of the world. We don't need different people in Washington. Well we do, but that's not a realistic goal, the system has literally been designed to keep people with goodwill away from holding any legitimate power. Literally the only way forward is removing power.
So your argument is things are so broken that we can't win within the current system and by electing the right people. Ok, only 3 ways to get that then. First is a Convention of States and then for it to go the way you want. Second is a Revolution/Civil War that overthrows the government. Third is secession.

First is a pipe dream that will fail. Way too many socialists to ever agree to a real improvement of the Constitution.

Second is insane.

Third has promise but it's complicated and risky on its own.

Otherwise you are just wishcasting that the world doesn't work the way you want. That's great for Stars but that's about it.
"Bad times create hard men. Hard men create good times. Good times create soft men. Soft men create bad times. "

You're a product of good times and your statement shows that.

Thomas Jefferson:
"What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Let's see if these profound words from one of our founding fathers, who amazingly show more intellect, intelligence and forward thinking than any poster on f16, including myself, resonates with a "true conservative" like yourself. I don't hold much hope though.

Well said.

People are too comfortable and do not want to risk upsetting their cushy lifestyle even though it's clear as day that future generations are going to suffer from our lack of desire to fix things now.
Learn about the Texas Nationalist Movement
https://tnm.me
Reply Quote
3
Faustus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:05p, 1/6/23
Hopefully the Dems didn't start day drinking again today.
Reply Quote
1
aggie93
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to RGLAG85 • 5:07p, 1/6/23
AG
RGLAG85 said:
aggie93 said:
Rodney Ruxin said:
Quote:
When you simply ignore how the world works don't be surprised you can't get the changes you want. BTW, one of Trump's biggest flaws is he didn't understand how DC worked and it sunk him over and over again. You have to know how to play the game in order to win it.
The only way to return to anything resembling a functional constitutional republic is to remove power from D.C. The corruption is so long-standing and so deep, you aren't going to get any meaningful change by electing the Trump's of the world. We don't need different people in Washington. Well we do, but that's not a realistic goal, the system has literally been designed to keep people with goodwill away from holding any legitimate power. Literally the only way forward is removing power.
So your argument is things are so broken that we can't win within the current system and by electing the right people. Ok, only 3 ways to get that then. First is a Convention of States and then for it to go the way you want. Second is a Revolution/Civil War that overthrows the government. Third is secession.

First is a pipe dream that will fail. Way too many socialists to ever agree to a real improvement of the Constitution.

Second is insane.

Third has promise but it's complicated and risky on its own.

Otherwise you are just wishcasting that the world doesn't work the way you want. That's great for Stars but that's about it.
"Bad times create hard men. Hard men create good times. Good times create soft men. Soft men create bad times. "

You're a product of good times and your statement shows that.

Thomas Jefferson:
"What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Let's see if these profound words from one of our founding fathers, who amazingly show more intellect, intelligence and forward thinking than any poster on f16, including myself, resonates with a "true conservative" like yourself. I don't hold much hope though.
Ok, so where am I wrong?

I'm a huge advocate of secession and if you look at my history on this Board I've been on tons of threads about it.

Convention of States sounds great but I just don't see how you get Leftist states to want a better Constitution.

Then you have Revolution/Civil War.

So I assume you are an advocate of War since you are a "hard man" and I am a "weak man"? Or more likely are you just unhappy that my analysis is correct of the options available and thus you want to throw Jefferson quotes at me (I'm a HUGE Jefferson fan btw). Or maybe you can explain to me where my logic fails? Love to hear it.
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Ronald Reagan
Reply Quote
aggie93
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rodney Ruxin • 5:12p, 1/6/23
AG
Rodney Ruxin said:
aggie93 said:
Rodney Ruxin said:
Quote:
When you simply ignore how the world works don't be surprised you can't get the changes you want. BTW, one of Trump's biggest flaws is he didn't understand how DC worked and it sunk him over and over again. You have to know how to play the game in order to win it.
The only way to return to anything resembling a functional constitutional republic is to remove power from D.C. The corruption is so long-standing and so deep, you aren't going to get any meaningful change by electing the Trump's of the world. We don't need different people in Washington. Well we do, but that's not a realistic goal, the system has literally been designed to keep people with goodwill away from holding any legitimate power. Literally the only way forward is removing power.
So your argument is things are so broken that we can't win within the current system and by electing the right people. Ok, only 3 ways to get that then. First is a Convention of States and then for it to go the way you want. Second is a Revolution/Civil War that overthrows the government. Third is secession.

First is a pipe dream that will fail. Way too many socialists to ever agree to a real improvement of the Constitution.

Second is insane.

Third has promise but it's complicated and risky on its own.

Otherwise you are just wishcasting that the world doesn't work the way you want. That's great for Stars but that's about it.

Regardless of how it's done, and I don't want any kind of war FYI, if we don't find a way to SIGNIFICANTLY reduce the amount of power the federal government currently has...... then yes we are f***ed. But f***ed doesn't necessarily mean forever. It could mean we are headed for a hard reset, which don't get me wrong would completely suck. Who knows what happens after that though. I would be blowing smoke up my own ass to pretend I have any idea what scenario is more likely to occur over another after that.

I'm just telling you that trying to elect different politicians to make any kind of MEANINGFUL change in the current system is absolutely a pipe dream. We will only continue to slide, the only thing that is moderately variable is the pace. Rearranging chairs on the Titanic at this point.

We are currently at $247,000 in debt per taxpayer and we show literally no sign of slowing down. It's pure insanity. One day it will be time to pay the piper. And that's completely ignoring the myriad of cultural issues that have been driven by different factions trying to wield increasing levels state power over each other instead of realizing that it's the exercise of that power itself that is the problem.

At this point, I do think the long-term "best bad choice" is a divorce. How that logistically goes down, I don't know. And I take zero joy in saying it whatsoever, it's never something I would choose unless it were the last possible option to retain a functioning free society. I fear we are headed towards that point. Just imo obviously.
I'm just as frustrated as you are if not more. I have thought peaceful secession was the best answer for some time now. I'm realistic enough to know though that it's not there, yet. I'm also still hopeful there are ways we can turn the ship around and that would be the least painful option but it's going to be really, really hard.
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Ronald Reagan
Reply Quote
Rodney Ruxin
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggie93 • 5:22p, 1/6/23
I certainly hope you are right. I don't know that I'd put money on it, but I definitely hope so. Agree it's the least painful solution. Just no clue how you get there.
Reply Quote
1 edit
aggie93
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rodney Ruxin • 5:36p, 1/6/23
AG
Rodney Ruxin said:
I certainly hope you are right. I don't know that I'd put money on it, but I definitely hope so. Agree it's the least painful solution. Just no clue how you get there.
There is a path but it is a difficult one. Starts with building momentum into '24 and getting someone like DeSantis in with a solid majority but it will take many years. Realistically it will take him getting in and winning over Moderates not through compromise of principle but through showing them that there is a better way. Reagan had success with that. Then he needs to be re-elected to a 2nd Term and have a reform of the Census in '30 that can put things back on the right track in terms of representation. That's just for starters.

Make no mistake though, any of the other 3 options are either far more painful or extremely dangerous. There is no easy solution but we have to face it, be realistic about what is ahead, and be ready to fight for it for the rest of our lives while passing on those values to our children and grandchildren. That's the only solution long term. It's a long and hard road ahead no matter which path we take.
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Ronald Reagan
Reply Quote
1872walker
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:37p, 1/6/23
She is insufferable. So I revel in this.

Reply Quote
23
Daddy-O5
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 1872walker • 5:41p, 1/6/23
AG
Cry harder brother lover.
Reply Quote
8
dmart90
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TheEternalPessimist • 5:47p, 1/6/23
AG
TheEternalPessimist said:
Ag CPA said:
MR Gadsden said:
Gaetz said yesterday he would resign if McCarthy became speaker.


Awesome, something good came out of this.
So you don't want Gaetz in Congress? Is that correct?
Abso-*******-lutely! That dude is a slime ball!
Reply Quote
6
1 edit
redcrayon
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dmart90 • 5:48p, 1/6/23
AG
dmart90 said:
TheEternalPessimist said:
Ag CPA said:
MR Gadsden said:
Gaetz said yesterday he would resign if McCarthy became speaker.


Awesome, something good came out of this.
So you don't want Gaetz in Congress? Is that correct?
Abso-*******-lutely! That dude is a slime ball!
Are you a resident of his district?
Reply Quote
5
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nortex97 • 5:48p, 1/6/23
AG
nortex97 said:
98PercenterAg said:
Now that it seems McCarthy is on track to win it tonight, time to look forward:

Chip Roy for Senate in 2026 over Cornyn.
I just want the final vote tonight to be cast by some 'freedom caucus' member wearing a shaman horned buffalo outfit.
Reply Quote
5
redcrayon
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Faustus • 5:50p, 1/6/23
AG
Faustus said:
Hopefully the Dems didn't start day drinking again today.
The drinking/coke joke was your best work.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
VegasAg86
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nortex97 • 5:52p, 1/6/23
AG
You can see how terrified the police officer was.
Reply Quote
7
aggiehawg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to VegasAg86 • 5:55p, 1/6/23
AG
VegasAg86 said:
You can see how terrified the police officer was.
Wasn't even afraid of covid since he had his mask down.
Reply Quote
4
Ag87H2O
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 1872walker • 5:58p, 1/6/23
AG
1872walker said:


Omar can pound sand - back in the country she came from.
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
dmart90
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to redcrayon • 6:03p, 1/6/23
AG
redcrayon said:
dmart90 said:
TheEternalPessimist said:
Ag CPA said:
MR Gadsden said:
Gaetz said yesterday he would resign if McCarthy became speaker.


Awesome, something good came out of this.
So you don't want Gaetz in Congress? Is that correct?
Abso-*******-lutely! That dude is a slime ball!
Are you a resident of his district?
I am not. I am not a resident of Nancy Pelosi's district either. She too is a slime ball and I don't want her in Congress.
Reply Quote
4
Gigem314
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 1872walker • 6:08p, 1/6/23
AG
1872walker said:
She is insufferable. So I revel in this.

Since the Republicans got the majority back, wouldn't that make them…resurrectionists?
Reply Quote
2
McInnis 03
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:26p, 1/6/23
AG


Reply Quote
1
2 edits
Post removed:
by user
In reply to McInnis 03 • 6:32p, 1/6/23
McInnis 03
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:54p, 1/6/23
AG
Reply Quote
1
Post removed:
by user
6:55p, 1/6/23
jt2hunt
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to [removed post] • 7:10p, 1/6/23
AG
We get your schtick!
Good for you.
Reply Quote
7
Drahknor03
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to [removed post] • 7:12p, 1/6/23
AG
C@LAg said:
Rest of McCarthy convos with conservatives is a handshake agreement

in other words.... they got nothing.

mccarthy playing 4d chess while gaetz is surfing tiktok.
The Motion to Vacate is the only thing that would actually go in the House Rules package. The rest require the formation of Committees and a meeting of the Republican Steering Committee to accomplish. If he doesn't put the Freedom Caucus folks on the Committees he promised, that Motion to Vacate going to come up real quick.

Reply Quote
8
Post removed:
by user
In reply to jt2hunt • 7:13p, 1/6/23
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.