(10-20-2023, 07:05 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Or maybe - and I know this sounds crazy - put up a moderate a handful of Dems can vote for.

It's not like the Dems don't have some accountability in this mess.  The only reason we are where we are is because Dems wouldn't give a single vote to McCarthy the first time, either, and so he had to make that ridiculous agreement with Gaetz for the motion to be brought by a single rep.

Supposedly Pelosi said she would back McCarthy.  I don't know if that was true, or if he went back on some promise/agreement with her. But this is a bipartisan mess.  It almost happened to the Dems when they also had a slim majority, but I think it was like 15-20 seats instead of 8 or we might very well have seen a similar situation. Dems didn't even need to vote FOR McCarthy....all it would have taken was for a handful to vote "present" or just skip the vote.

Whether they blindly vote with their party, or commit "domestic terrorism" by daring to represent their district (as they're supposed to), people keep re-electing them so I guess we all deserve this.  When you have a comfortable majority, people like Gaetz are little more than fodder for cable news.  But with a slim majority, they suddenly gain power and influence through none of their own doing.

All I know is 20 years ago the minority party (either one) didn't uniformly oppose the majority on any issue of consequence.  People like Gaetz can't take hostages unless the minority party is willing to go along.

(10-20-2023, 07:05 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Or maybe - and I know this sounds crazy - put up a moderate a handful of Dems can vote for.

It's not like the Dems don't have some accountability in this mess.  The only reason we are where we are is because Dems wouldn't give a single vote to McCarthy the first time, either, and so he had to make that ridiculous agreement with Gaetz for the motion to be brought by a single rep.

Supposedly Pelosi said she would back McCarthy.  I don't know if that was true, or if he went back on some promise/agreement with her. But this is a bipartisan mess.  It almost happened to the Dems when they also had a slim majority, but I think it was like 15-20 seats instead of 8 or we might very well have seen a similar situation.  Dems didn't even need to vote FOR McCarthy....all it would have taken was for a handful to vote "present" or just skip the vote.

Whether they blindly vote with their party, or commit "domestic terrorism" by daring to represent their district (as they're supposed to), people keep re-electing them so I guess we all deserve this.  When you have a comfortable majority, people like Gaetz are little more than fodder for cable news.  But with a slim majority, they suddenly gain power and influence through none of their own doing.

All I know is 20 years ago the minority party (either one) didn't uniformly oppose the majority on any issue of consequence.  People like Gaetz can't take hostages unless the minority party is willing to go along.

(10-20-2023, 07:05 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Or maybe - and I know this sounds crazy - put up a moderate a handful of Dems can vote for.

It's not like the Dems don't have some accountability in this mess.  The only reason we are where we are is because Dems wouldn't give a single vote to McCarthy the first time, either, and so he had to make that ridiculous agreement with Gaetz for the motion to be brought by a single rep.

Supposedly Pelosi said she would back McCarthy.  I don't know if that was true, or if he went back on some promise/agreement with her. But this is a bipartisan mess.  It almost happened to the Dems when they also had a slim majority, but I think it was like 15-20 seats instead of 8 or we might very well have seen a similar situation.  Dems didn't even need to vote FOR McCarthy....all it would have taken was for a handful to vote "present" or just skip the vote.

Whether they blindly vote with their party, or commit "domestic terrorism" by daring to represent their district (as they're supposed to), people keep re-electing them so I guess we all deserve this.  When you have a comfortable majority, people like Gaetz are little more than fodder for cable news.  But with a slim majority, they suddenly gain power and influence through none of their own doing.

All I know is 20 years ago the minority party (either one) didn't uniformly oppose the majority on any issue of consequence.  People like Gaetz can't take hostages unless the minority party is willing to go along.

(10-21-2023, 03:29 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Quick reminder: The House gop has a 221 member majority. Provided all members of the House are present, it takes 217 votes to elect a Speaker.
There is NO scenario where the Democrats shoulder any blame for this screaming clusterfuck. None.

republicans can't govern.

— Roger ZenAF (@RogerZenAF) October 21, 2023

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

(10-20-2023, 07:12 PM)Nately120 Wrote: If the republicans had the undeniable majority they'd have their speaker like both sides have these past 200 years or so.

They have 9 more seats and at least 8 "Republicans" in those seats who put their own clout and agenda above the rest of the republicans.

Also id wager there are 0 democrats they'd vote for and as soon as any Republican got any democrat support they'd be rushing to declare him/her A RINO and pull the plug.

Or maybe they work it out.  May be they'll all just vote for Trump and give the democrats the middle finger they promised.

Sent from my LM-X210CM using Tapatalk

(10-21-2023, 07:13 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Again, when it comes to electing Speaker, it's only a majority of those voting.  The Dems are giving those 8 or so Repubs power, deliberately & knowingly, by casting opposition votes.  I completely agree if the shoe were on the other foot the Repubs would do the same.  But if there was an agreement, or Pelosi/Jeffries actually wanted to end this, all they had to do the first time or now is have like 10 members not show up or vote present.

Both parties are playing a game of chicken here. BOTH.  And it's all politics.  Clearly the Republicans will deservedly take most of the blame, which is what the Dems are hoping to achieve.  Meanwhile, the world is kind of on fire.  The Dems can end this, but they also won't.  They are not blameless by any stretch.

(10-21-2023, 07:24 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Are the Republicans, at least in theory, able to elect a speaker and reopen the house without anything from the Democrats?

Yes, they are. Unequivocally. Their inability to come together as the majority and elect one of their members to be speaker, like it has been done for the past 200+ years is what is causing this first and foremost. 

Dems have no obligation to capitulate to the GOP.

(10-21-2023, 07:29 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: But BOTH parties own this mess. 

(10-21-2023, 07:29 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: No, they don't.  But history has never seen such a slim majority (although I think Pelosi had the same, and she struggled with herding the Squad and cats, as well).  It's not hard to imagine a less experienced/respected member, like Jeffries, in the exact same scenario as McCarthy was.

But there is also no written rule that you HAVE to vote with the party.  Although I agree they should be able to come together for a leader, this sort of dysfunction applies to every vote when both parties are adamantly against any sort of bipartisanship.

The Dems have the right to vote for whomever they want.  As do Gaetz and those clowns.  But BOTH parties own this mess.  Truly.   Gaetz and the Repub holdouts couldn't pull this off without Dem votes.  That's a fact.

The only question is how long Dems will allow this to drag on before deciding important business isn't getting done.

(10-21-2023, 07:02 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Like I said, you can't vote with the "domestic terrorists" and call yourself the adult in the room.  The Dems didn't have to cast a single vote for a Repub, a handful simply had to vote present or not show up.  It doesn't take 217 votes to elect a Speaker, it takes a majority of those voting.  When the Dems go and vote, futilely, for Jeffires they are in fact knowingly voting with Gaetz and the other idiots for chaos.

(10-21-2023, 07:29 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: No, they don't.

(10-21-2023, 08:02 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: No they don't.

(10-22-2023, 12:26 AM)CKwi88 Wrote: No. Not in the least. 

GOP made the mess themselves.

(10-22-2023, 11:43 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: So you believe that voting for a situation to happen means you have no responsibility for that situation happening?

It's still the Republicans job to get their shit together to choose a new Speaker, which they seem to be incapable of doing... but to think Democrats have completely zero responsibility for the House not having a Speaker when they all unanimously voted to get rid of the Speaker? That seems disingenuous at best.

(10-22-2023, 12:35 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Ida know, democrats could concede and nominate (googling) PA's Brian Fitzpatrick, a republican from a swing district in a swing state and then republicans would all see the R by his name and they'd make it a landslide.

Fitzpatrick opposed Jim Jordan (eventually), I'm sure Matt Gaetz hates his guts, and he has an R by his name so the nearly 200 people who just got done voting for Jim Jordan should just turn their votes over to him, or all 212 democrats should vote for him at which point I can only assume republicans would vote for someone else for fear of the truth that they voted in lock step with democrats on something would endanger their careers or lives.

Or democrats could keep voting for Jefferies and hope that the butthurt factions of the GOP house is so spiteful and into their victim fetish that they vote present or decide to pout in their offices and "Look what you made me do" their way into a democrat at the helm.


This whole thing is just weird.

GOP - we are in the majority, it's up to us to elect a speaker.
DEMs - ok, elect a speaker.
GOP - we can't we don't have enough votes
DEMs - so vote for our guy
GOP - no, the majority party gets to pick the speaker
DEMs - ok, so pick a speaker
GOP - we can't we don't have enough votes
DEMs - so vote for our guy
GOP - no, the majority party gets to pick the speaker
DEMs - ok, so pick a speaker
GOP - we can't we don't have enough votes
DEMs - so vote for our guy
GOP - no, the majority party gets to pick the speaker
DEMs - ok, so pick a speaker
GOP - we can't we don't have enough votes


Yes, the GOP has the majority, as long as the people within tow the line and do what the rest of the party wants.  When you have a bunch of people who have that R but are really there to use politics as a springboard to fame and social media clout, your majority is a red mirage, or something to that nature.

(10-22-2023, 01:36 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I am not talking about Democrats voting FOR a Republican or helping to get a new Speaker chosen.

I am talking about how Democrats voting to remove the Speaker in the first place, to create the need for a new Speaker, means it's not 100% a situation of the Republicans making with the Democrats having absolutely zero responsibility for.

If 2% of the population wants something to happen, and then 49% of the population votes with that 2% to allow that thing to happen, both the 2% and the 49% of the population is responsible for that thing happening. You can't vote for something to happen and then wash your hands and pretend you had zero participation in the results.

(10-22-2023, 01:36 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I am not talking about Democrats voting FOR a Republican or helping to get a new Speaker chosen.

I am talking about how Democrats voting to remove the Speaker in the first place, to create the need for a new Speaker, means it's not 100% a situation of the Republicans making with the Democrats having absolutely zero responsibility for.

If 2% of the population wants something to happen, and then 49% of the population votes with that 2% to allow that thing to happen, both the 2% and the 49% of the population is responsible for that thing happening. You can't vote for something to happen and then wash your hands and pretend you had zero participation in the results.

(10-22-2023, 02:01 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Democrats in the House weren't put into power to keep McCarthy in power.  They removed McCarthy, the refusal of the house to plan to replace him is on the GOP. 

But as ive said, I'm beyond surprised democrats haven't just caved in and given the GOP what they want yet.  They still can and then they'll get zero credit for being well meaning doormats. 

(10-22-2023, 01:36 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I am not talking about Democrats voting FOR a Republican or helping to get a new Speaker chosen.

I am talking about how Democrats voting to remove the Speaker in the first place, to create the need for a new Speaker, means it's not 100% a situation of the Republicans making with the Democrats having absolutely zero responsibility for.

If 2% of the population wants something to happen, and then 49% of the population votes with that 2% to allow that thing to happen, both the 2% and the 49% of the population is responsible for that thing happening. You can't vote for something to happen and then wash your hands and pretend you had zero participation in the results.