Re: Kevin McCarthy

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2023-01-05, 09:31

Floyd Robertson wrote:[tw]1610996621101113345[/tw]

Giving concessions to a group of RWNJs is a bad oman.

he's gonna do everything he can to get the votes.. all he's waiting for now is the official endorsement from Putin.

it's gonna be entertaining as hell the next two years watching them eat themselves from the inside and impeaching Hunter Biden.

by Spartytruth 2023-01-05, 10:28

Byron Donald received votes. In 1997, Donalds was arrested for marijuana distribution; the charges were dropped as part of a pre-trial diversion program. In 2000, he pleaded guilty to a felony bribery charge as part of a scheme to defraud a bank

I guess the diversion didn't work.

by **tGreenWay** 2023-01-05, 10:39

Spartytruth wrote:Byron Donald received votes. In 1997, Donalds was arrested for marijuana distribution; the charges were dropped as part of a pre-trial diversion program. In 2000, he pleaded guilty to a felony bribery charge as part of a scheme to defraud a bank

I guess the diversion didn't work.

Seems like he’s in the perfect mold of a republican speaker.

by **Trapper Gus** 2023-01-05, 10:40

tGreenWay wrote:
Spartytruth wrote:Byron Donald received votes. In 1997, Donalds was arrested for marijuana distribution; the charges were dropped as part of a pre-trial diversion program. In 2000, he pleaded guilty to a felony bribery charge as part of a scheme to defraud a bank

I guess the diversion didn't work.

Seems like he’s in the perfect mold of a republican speaker.

Aren't the qualifications sexual molester?

by **Turtleneck** 2023-01-05, 12:52

[tw]1611054891967082496?s=20&t=bUYR--5UHl1DEbHUW_LyNA[/tw]

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2023-01-05, 12:58

sexual predator Matt Gaetz nominated the racist, bigoted christian sexual predator for Speaker.

this makes my christian Mio parts tingle.

by **Floyd Robertson** 2023-01-05, 14:18

Knock Knock
Who's there?
Owen
Owen who?
Owen Eight

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2023-01-05, 14:29

serious question: is McCarthy sitting there the whole time watching this?

'cause, if so, then Kevin McCarthy - Page 3 502811600

by **InTenSity** 2023-01-05, 14:38

Robert J Sakimano wrote:serious question: is McCarthy sitting there the whole time watching this?

'cause, if so, then

He has to be. They have to be present to vote, its a verbal vote AFAIK.

by **Trapper Gus** 2023-01-05, 14:45

InTenSity wrote:
Robert J Sakimano wrote:serious question: is McCarthy sitting there the whole time watching this?

'cause, if so, then

He has to be. They have to be present to vote, its a verbal vote AFAIK.

The 117th Congress allowed virtual voting, not sure if those rules carry over.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2023-01-05, 14:49

InTenSity wrote:
Robert J Sakimano wrote:serious question: is McCarthy sitting there the whole time watching this?

'cause, if so, then

He has to be. They have to be present to vote, its a verbal vote AFAIK.

not sure what AFAIK means, but since he has to be there to witness it, this makes it one of the more funny AFAIKing things I've seen in while.

by **tGreenWay** 2023-01-05, 14:51

Floyd Robertson wrote:Knock Knock
Who's there?
Owen
Owen who?
Owen Eight

by **tGreenWay** 2023-01-05, 14:53

Trapper Gus wrote:
InTenSity wrote:
He has to be. They have to be present to vote, its a verbal vote AFAIK.

The 117th Congress allowed virtual voting, not sure if those rules carry over.

He’s there. As for the rule, I don’t know if it carries over or not, but connies didn’t like the rule in the last Congress.

by **Trapper Gus** 2023-01-05, 15:01

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
InTenSity wrote:
He has to be. They have to be present to vote, its a verbal vote AFAIK.
not sure what AFAIK means, but since he has to be there to witness it, this makes it one of the more funny AFAIKing things I've seen in while.

As
Far
As
I
Know

by **duffy munn** 2023-01-05, 15:09

Robert J Sakimano wrote:sexual predator Matt Gaetz nominated the racist, bigoted christian sexual predator for Speaker.

Which one?

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2023-01-05, 15:13

Trapper Gus wrote:
Robert J Sakimano wrote:
not sure what AFAIK means, but since he has to be there to witness it, this makes it one of the more funny AFAIKing things I've seen in while.

As
Far
As
I
Know

thanks, home slice.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2023-01-05, 15:14

duffy munn wrote:
Robert J Sakimano wrote:sexual predator Matt Gaetz nominated the racist, bigoted christian sexual predator for Speaker.

Which one?

they do have their fair share of jesus-lovin', christian sexual predators to choose from.

by **kingstonlake** 2023-01-05, 15:50

The lions had a better record thru 8 contests than McCarthy.

by **kingstonlake** 2023-01-05, 15:51

Seriously though. We make fun of him but he can't give in to these idiots, right?. It's worse for Dems if he does via assignments and such. Fill me in.

by **tGreenWay** 2023-01-05, 15:55

by **kingstonlake** 2023-01-05, 16:26

This is so weird.
Trump supports McCarthy, McCarthy continues to lose.
Bimbobert, Gaetz and Co. can't get their way because McCarthy won't cave to them.
I guess it was inevitable that these void of soul clowns would begin feeding on each other.

by **Floyd Robertson** 2023-01-05, 17:49

tGreenWay wrote:0-9

There should be a rule, like if you strike out nine times in nine innings then you're disqualified.

by **kingstonlake** 2023-01-05, 19:03

0 for Payton Thorne

by **GRR Spartan** 2023-01-05, 19:19

tGreenWay wrote:0-9

The insurgents pitched a perfect no hitter

by AvgMSUJoe 2023-01-05, 19:47

So, assuming he gives away all this internal stability... and gets the job. How long before he looses it?

I'm thinking 2 weeks.

by **tGreenWay** 2023-01-05, 20:20

AvgMSUJoe wrote:So, assuming he gives away all this internal stability... and gets the job. How long before he looses it?

I'm thinking 2 weeks.

And he’s made it impossible for anyone else in the GOP to govern without being removed. It’s exactly what the 20 want; chaos and uncertainty with nothing getting done.

by **tGreenWay** 2023-01-05, 20:21

Floyd Robertson wrote:
tGreenWay wrote:0-9

There should be a rule, like if you strike out nine times in nine innings then you're disqualified.

Republicans are incapable of running government.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2023-01-05, 20:23

The McCarthy people should have however many leaves jefferies 1 short of winning peel off and vote for him for a few rounds. Make the crazies think they might actually mess around and do it.

Worth a fuckin shot at least instead of just proceeding to round 12

by **Motown Spartan** 2023-01-05, 20:50

Definition of insanity.

by **kingstonlake** 2023-01-05, 20:52

Isn't it just a question of who McCarthy chooses to cave in to? The 20 psycho chaos agents or Dems?

Should Dems cut a deal for meaningful positions on committees and other concessions from McCarthy? Can he even be trusted? Or do they just let him cave to the chaos crew knowing the Senate will bounce anything ridiculous back. Sounds like Dems want to play the long game. In the end this will hurt the gop

I'm done riffing.

by **DWags** 2023-01-05, 21:29

kingstonlake wrote:Isn't it just a question of who McCarthy chooses to cave in to? The 20 psycho chaos agents or Dems?

Should Dems cut a deal for meaningful positions on committees and other concessions from McCarthy? Can he even be trusted? Or do they just let him cave to the chaos crew knowing the Senate will bounce anything ridiculous back. Sounds like Dems want to play the long game. In the end this will hurt the gop

I'm done riffing.

Would you trust him?

by **Motown Spartan** 2023-01-05, 22:08

Fuck him, the Dems should not cut a deal. Let them implode, nuclear style. I think this was anticipated by Senate GOPs which is why they passed the omnibus legislation last week. Let this play out, hands off.

by **MiamiSpartan** 2023-01-05, 22:48

So bear with me here. Not sure if this has been discussed here or elsewhere, but with tomorrow being January 6, of course, I got wondering what if all this Speaker drama happened 2 years ago (under the hypothetical of the Rs winning the House in 2020).

Without a Speaker, no one has been sworn in. All previous terms have expired. We have no members of the House of Representatives, only Representative-elects. And can Representative-elects carry out official duties of the House of Representatives?

So, the question is, could something like this have had any effect on the January 6, 2020 counting of electoral votes. The Constitution (or supporting documents) states that the electoral votes must be read before both Chambers of Congress, and that members of both have the right to object to votes, which then requires the Chambers to separate and vote in the objection. But if there are no sworn members of the House, can they legally object and vote on those objections? And if not, then is the counting of votes legal by the terms of the Constitution? At the very least, I could see the final counting and verification of the results being challenged on these grounds, unless something in the Constitution and other relevant rules specifically addresses whether representative-elects can carry out any official duties.

My larger point is whether this whole thing may be a trial balloon for Jan 6, 2025, if certain people don't like the outcome of the 2024 election.

by **Floyd Robertson** 2023-01-06, 05:23

MiamiSpartan wrote:So bear with me here. Not sure if this has been discussed here or elsewhere, but with tomorrow being January 6, of course, I got wondering what if all this Speaker drama happened 2 years ago (under the hypothetical of the Rs winning the House in 2020).

Without a Speaker, no one has been sworn in. All previous terms have expired. We have no members of the House of Representatives, only Representative-elects. And can Representative-elects carry out official duties of the House of Representatives?

So, the question is, could something like this have had any effect on the January 6, 2020 counting of electoral votes. The Constitution (or supporting documents) states that the electoral votes must be read before both Chambers of Congress, and that members of both have the right to object to votes, which then requires the Chambers to separate and vote in the objection. But if there are no sworn members of the House, can they legally object and vote on those objections? And if not, then is the counting of votes legal by the terms of the Constitution? At the very least, I could see the final counting and verification of the results being challenged on these grounds, unless something in the Constitution and other relevant rules specifically addresses whether representative-elects can carry out any official duties.

My larger point is whether this whole thing may be a trial balloon for Jan 6, 2025, if certain people don't like the outcome of the 2024 election.

That this is another dry run for future (in)action is a scary thought, but it's consistent withe Steve Bannon long (con) game.

by **Motown Spartan** 2023-01-06, 07:29

It’s funny that Republicans are finally able to rerun an election over and over again and yet they still can’t win.

by **Jake from State Farm** 2023-01-06, 08:47

Robert J Sakimano wrote:serious question: is McCarthy sitting there the whole time watching this?

'cause, if so, then

With MTG sitting on his lap and tongue punching his ear the whole time.

by **InTenSity** 2023-01-06, 09:02

MiamiSpartan wrote:So bear with me here. Not sure if this has been discussed here or elsewhere, but with tomorrow being January 6, of course, I got wondering what if all this Speaker drama happened 2 years ago (under the hypothetical of the Rs winning the House in 2020).

Without a Speaker, no one has been sworn in. All previous terms have expired. We have no members of the House of Representatives, only Representative-elects. And can Representative-elects carry out official duties of the House of Representatives?

So, the question is, could something like this have had any effect on the January 6, 2020 counting of electoral votes. The Constitution (or supporting documents) states that the electoral votes must be read before both Chambers of Congress, and that members of both have the right to object to votes, which then requires the Chambers to separate and vote in the objection. But if there are no sworn members of the House, can they legally object and vote on those objections? And if not, then is the counting of votes legal by the terms of the Constitution? At the very least, I could see the final counting and verification of the results being challenged on these grounds, unless something in the Constitution and other relevant rules specifically addresses whether representative-elects can carry out any official duties.

My larger point is whether this whole thing may be a trial balloon for Jan 6, 2025, if certain people don't like the outcome of the 2024 election.

I don't think this strategy would work for a couple of reasons.
1)There is the assumption that R's will retain the house, if they don't, it doesn't matter what they do because D's will be in control and will vote in a Speaker.
2)If R's do win the house and Biden or whoever the D nominee is wins the presidency, I could see a scenario in which the D's pick 10 of the safest districts and promise not to primary those Rep's and have them vote to get the R's the speaker.
I don't think the whole party would agree to hold up democracy.
Did the D's just pass a law that made Jan 6 completely ceremonial at this point?

by **Trapper Gus** 2023-01-06, 09:17

MiamiSpartan wrote:So bear with me here. Not sure if this has been discussed here or elsewhere, but with tomorrow being January 6, of course, I got wondering what if all this Speaker drama happened 2 years ago (under the hypothetical of the Rs winning the House in 2020).

Without a Speaker, no one has been sworn in. All previous terms have expired. We have no members of the House of Representatives, only Representative-elects. And can Representative-elects carry out official duties of the House of Representatives?

So, the question is, could something like this have had any effect on the January 6, 2020 counting of electoral votes. The Constitution (or supporting documents) states that the electoral votes must be read before both Chambers of Congress, and that members of both have the right to object to votes, which then requires the Chambers to separate and vote in the objection. But if there are no sworn members of the House, can they legally object and vote on those objections? And if not, then is the counting of votes legal by the terms of the Constitution? At the very least, I could see the final counting and verification of the results being challenged on these grounds, unless something in the Constitution and other relevant rules specifically addresses whether representative-elects can carry out any official duties.

My larger point is whether this whole thing may be a trial balloon for Jan 6, 2025, if certain people don't like the outcome of the 2024 election.

No vote for President is what would happen,

However, the term of the President ends on January 21st, regardless of if another has been elected or not, (one of the major issues with what Trump tried to do)

So does the VP's term,

Next in line is the House Speaker, in this situation there is none,

After that it is the President Pro-Tem of the Senate, who would be in office, and in 2024 likely will be a Republican, who would be the acting President of the US

by **Trapper Gus** 2023-01-06, 10:18

"It was the government shutdown in ’19, the insurrection of ’21, and now the current chaos of ’23," Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) told Axios. "The common denominator ... is having a handful of Republicans in the House of Representatives who have no interest in governing."

https://www.axios.com/2023/01/06/jan6-second-anniversary-speaker-vote wrote:

by TravelinMan 2023-01-06, 10:27

These 20 are bat-shit crazy enough it almost makes me feel bad for the other Republicans. How in the world do people like this get elected?

by Sponsored content