There was a hostage situation at a synagogue there last year. Book ban efforts also concentrate there and a black school principal was forced out for "critical race theory," curiously after having been told to remove pictures of himself and his white wife on the beach from his personal Facebook page.Colleyville. Isn't that the same town where the synagogue attack occurred?
I think Democrats are just happy to see the infighting among the Republicans. I don't think they want McCarthy, but I'm going to guess Donalds would be more extreme. I think in the next round of voting you'll see more support for Trump. It won't be anything major, but I expect at least 3-4 people will vote for him.Honest question, because I really don't know. Should Democrats be rooting for McCarthy? As far as I can tell, the ultra-right-wingers are upset about him because he won't be extreme enough for them. If they need to be appeased, doesn't this mean a more insane house than it would be under McCarthy?
All of this is nothing compared to that town's egregious land use policies.There was a hostage situation at a synagogue there last year. Book ban efforts also concentrate there and a black school principal was forced out for "critical race theory," curiously after having been told to remove pictures of himself and his white wife on the beach from his personal Facebook page.
This is what I was alluding to earlier. At some point it will be in the Dems best interest to vote for him before he promises the true psychos positions with teeth...and I think they would eventually step up if that seemed like it was going to happen (or at least vote present, which would effectively do the same thing). I keep wondering if a moderate will step up for some Israel-politics style coalition building - it seems plausible and honestly probably in the nation's best interest. This congress is functioning very nearly like a 3-party one.Honest question, because I really don't know. Should Democrats be rooting for McCarthy? As far as I can tell, the ultra-right-wingers are upset about him because he won't be extreme enough for them. If they need to be appeased, doesn't this mean a more insane house than it would be under McCarthy?
I have been musing this also. Yes, it's funny to see McCarthy squirm, but the people doing it are among the stupidest asshats ever to occupy their respective positions - Boebert missed one vote because she was nattering and on her phone - and have been gulping down the Qoolaid for the past eight years.Honest question, because I really don't know. Should Democrats be rooting for McCarthy? As far as I can tell, the ultra-right-wingers are upset about him because he won't be extreme enough for them. If they need to be appeased, doesn't this mean a more insane house than it would be under McCarthy?
I would really love to see all of the Democrats vote for a moderate Republican, in-bloc in the next round of voting. If nothing else it would demonstrate they are united and contrast themselves with the total **** show the GOP has become. How about this guy? He looks like he could do the job. Funnily enough, I bet some of the 19/20 morons currently sinking McCarthy's ship would vote with the Democrats just to spite McCarthy for no plausible reason other than personal satisfaction.I have been musing this also. Yes, it's funny to see McCarthy squirm, but the people doing it are among the stupidest asshats ever to occupy their respective positions - Boebert missed one vote because she was nattering and on her phone - and have been gulping down the Qoolaid for the past eight years.
While potentially a logical fallacy, if they are against him it doesn't seem like a sensible position to hold. Obviously they don't really hold the position that McCarthy is himself a communal fleshlight (which he is) and they're simply holding him ransom for some concessions (apparently they want their own Congressional hit squad, to act like they think the J6 committee does) once they do vote for him.
If the Democrats don't act to solve the Republicans' mess (change the record), they may end up giving the assqlowns what they want.
One of the concessions that McCarthy has already promised to get the votes he has is that it will only take 5 house majority members to trigger a vote of no confidence. Some of the holdouts apparently want it to be that any member of the majority can trigger such a vote. Even still, at 5 members, I think the democrats cross party lines at their own peril. Electing him speaker can be undone rather quickly, especially if he's collaborating with the unholy demon spawn on the other side.I have been musing this also. Yes, it's funny to see McCarthy squirm, but the people doing it are among the stupidest asshats ever to occupy their respective positions - Boebert missed one vote because she was nattering and on her phone - and have been gulping down the Qoolaid for the past eight years.
While potentially a logical fallacy, if they are against him it doesn't seem like a sensible position to hold. Obviously they don't really hold the position that McCarthy is himself a communal fleshlight (which he is) and they're simply holding him ransom for some concessions (apparently they want their own Congressional hit squad, to act like they think the J6 committee does) once they do vote for him.
If the Democrats don't act to solve the Republicans' mess (change the record), they may end up giving the assqlowns what they want.
It seems as though they thought the petulant children would get in line rather than embarrass the entire party. Incorrect assumption.McCarthy gets the L for the 9th time.
This really is getting ridiculous. Nominating the same people over and over again and expecting a different result is completely asinine. Did they really not discuss a backup plan, especially when so many Reps stated they were in the "Never Kevin" group?
Doesn't seem like it based on our history.Isn't there a limit to how many votes they can have before they end up having their votes forfeited?
What happened in 1856? Was Kevin MacArthur up for the seat?Doesn't seem like it based on our history.
That is what I read as well. Until the speaker is elected, they can't work on anything which is one of the worries if something urgent were to come up.As far as I understand it, the house of representatives is a house of representatives-elect until the members are seated by the speaker. Meaning that practically speaking, we don't actually have a house of representatives at the moment...they cannot actually do anything.
We're not missing out on much, let's be honest.As far as I understand it, the house of representatives is a house of representatives-elect until the members are seated by the speaker. Meaning that practically speaking, we don't actually have a house of representatives at the moment...they cannot actually do anything.
That's because in Canada you have people who care more about the country than the GOP does. They pine for the country from a century ago.Looking on from wishy washy Canada what strikes me about the American political process is that it's absurdly, dysfunctional polarized. Whichever party wins the majority in the House or Senate - no matter how small the majority actually is - appears to consider that a blank cheque to pursue the most partisan approach possible. In Canada, a close election result is generally considered - by both of the main governing parties - as a reason to govern from a more centrist position. The GOP seems to be following a scorched earth policy, with a small group within the House Republican caucus advocating an even more extreme scorched earth policy ... even though they don't have have any real mandate to do it ... and don't even have the votes to do it. Crazy.
I'm not sure that's really true. It's more about the political culture in Canada. There have been attempts to import the US kind of extreme partisanship into Canadian politics but they haven't gained much traction. Also, the extreme right in Canada is a pretty small minority - the majority of Canadians are centrist or somewhat left-of-centre (ie. wild socialists by American standards). From 1947 to 2003 the Conservative party actually went by the name "Progressive Conservative Party" ... imagine that in the US! 🤔That's because in Canada you have people who care more about the country than the GOP does. They pine for the country from a century ago.