US US Politics General - Discussion of President Biden and other politicians

 

[Weppers]

I know US politics is a national disgrace at the best of times, more resembling a bitching housing association meeting rather than a world power, but I don't really understand the 'strategy here'. So some Republications don't want Mr. M as speaker unless he caves to demands. The Dems are sticking behind their guy who won't get in because they don't have a majority. Isn't the big brain play here for the Dems to vote for Mr. M, pushing an unpopular speaker into play against the wishes of the overall Republican majority?

What am I missing?

The Dems can't vote for McCarthy because they've already started calling him the devil. The establishment Dems and establishment Reps can't ever openly admit that they're one big colluding team keeping up the appearance of opposition or else the whole con will fail and need to be replaced.

 

[Catch The Rainbow]

The freedom caucus is doing to the GOP what the progressive caucus promised to do to the DNC but backed down. The progressives could have kept Pelosi from being speaker and they demanded she let medicare for all go to a floor vote or they wouldn't vote for her. She said no, and they voted for her anyways. That single vote crippled the "squad" from that point on. If the freedom caucus cucks, they will meet the same fate, and they'll have to fall in line or be knocked out in their next primary.

 

[mandatorylurk]

I know US politics is a national disgrace at the best of times, more resembling a bitching housing association meeting rather than a world power, but I don't really understand the 'strategy here'. So some Republications don't want Mr. M as speaker unless he caves to demands. The Dems are sticking behind their guy who won't get in because they don't have a majority. Isn't the big brain play here for the Dems to vote for Mr. M, pushing an unpopular speaker into play against the wishes of the overall Republican majority?

What am I missing?

The democrats won't vote for McCarthy unless he gives in to some of their wishes, they sit there because if they leave the threshold is lowered for how many votes are needed. They're making him squirm and fail on purpose. If McCarthy allows democrat demands instead of the reasonable requests from the Gaetz people, it makes him look even worse and then you will have a full on revolt in the GOP, to the point where you will have a third party pop up from within the GOP in burn it all down disgust. This is why McCarthy not even pretending to be more conservative than he is is so fascinating, it's like someone desperately trying to keep lying under interrogation even though he's caught and all he has to do is just concede a few things that would make him look better to the GOP voter.

Trump is just trying to be the nice guy in the middle on this whole thing for appearances and wins either way which is kind of a first for him, a neutered McCarthy or a more conservative choice takes over to let his MAGA people do what they want.

There's another, they want the ability for a single member to call for the ousting of the Speaker. McCarthy is apparently refusing to budge from his first offer of needing five members.

I think McCarthy is right here, you don't let one person derail things, five people at least means there's something, and in the case of these 20 people they could pick from the group if need be.

 

[SBG]

I mean, they’re right, this IS horrifically embarrassing for the uniparty Republicans. Their mistake is assuming that embarrassing the GOPe is somehow a good thing for them.

Is it embarrassing for them?

I think most average people are just confused by all this and wondering why it's even happening. The whole thing about him wanting to threaten people's primaries hasn't gotten much public attention.

I figure the Uniparty just assumed they could use the media attention to shame the Freedom caucus into submission, not realizing with all the shit they threw at Gaetz in the past that there's no really nothing more they can do to him or really anyone else now. They seem in complete denial that they're the ones that have to make concessions this time to get a deal done rather than being able to ask everyone else to.

 

[Breadbassket]

I think McCarthy is right here, you don't let one person derail things, five people at least means there's something, and in the case of these 20 people they could pick from the group if need be.

Maybe they gave him such an outrageous demand intentionally so he would be forced to decline it? I mean it would give them more of an excuse to do what they are doing now.

 

[Kuritan Deplorable]

Maybe they gave him such an outrageous demand intentionally so he would be forced to decline it? I mean it would give them more of an excuse to do what they are doing now.

Ask for the moon, compromise on orbit. There is no reason to not ask for your dream result, because you might just get it, and it sets grounds for any compromise talk going forward. Don't open with three layers of compromise just because you think it might be forced to that spot.

Instead, force them to waste effort, capital, and political will to walk you back from it.

 

[Paul Pelosi's Boyfriend]

Wew lads

 

[LurkTrawl]

They seem in complete denial that they're the ones that have to make concessions this time to get a deal done rather than being able to ask everyone else to.

Tyrants shocked, appalled, frightened, insulted, and psychotically angry when they don't have power. Water is wet, most birds fly, and grass grows, more news at 11.

 

[Bland Crumbs]

Oh, that man would be a fucking riot if he got put in charge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakeem_Jeffries

He has no seniority, no experience, and as a result no real power, making him one giant puppet.

Remember, ten years in Congress is nothing when you look at how long Biden hung around in the Senate like a bad smell before becoming Veep. Pelosi first got seated in Congress in 1987, and it took her fifteen years of dick sucking (possibly even literally) to become the Whip in 2002.
View attachment 4193462
Christ, his official photograph has him looking like a half-shaved gorilla.

The Democrats not actually having their own guy in charge, and the highly likely possibility that forcing McCarthy into power just unites the Republicans against him and the Democrats. One vote of no confidence later and next thing you know the GOP has put Jim Jeffries in charge out of spite.

Jefferies is a fucking retard. I have no idea why the left wants him climbing the ranks outside of the fact that he is again a retard. He was given a prominent speaking role in impeachment #1 and could not even read from the pages in front of him.

 

[Rykel22]

Jefferies is a fucking retard. I have no idea why the left wants him climbing the ranks outside of the fact that he is again a retard. He was given a prominent speaking role in impeachment #1 and could not even read from the pages in front of him.

Be interesting to see a chimp out in the halls of congress. Might make people watch c-span

 

[Oxous]

From CNN's live feed from today (archive), apparently one of the demands Gaetz made out of McCarthy.

 

[mandatorylurk]

From CNN's live feed from today (archive), apparently one of the demands Gaetz made out of McCarthy.
View attachment 4193547

Eyepatch McCain seething so much now, Mini-Trump would be above him to deny his requests to send Ukraine Nazis some Black Rifle Coffee.

 

[Catch The Rainbow]

What makes them anywhere close to the taliban LMAO

WASHINGTON — Kevin can wait. But for how long?

The House of Representatives deadlocked again Wednesday on the second day of voting for a new speaker — failing to put Republican leader Kevin McCarthy of California in the post through five ballots.

An alliance of 20 conservative rebels again refused to back McCarthy and gave their votes instead to Byron Donalds of Florida in the fourth and fifth rounds.

McCarthy’s chances worsened as Indiana Republican Victoria Spartz voted “present” twice after supporting McCarthy in the first three ballots Tuesday.

Spartz told reporters after round four that she was “still supporting” McCarthy but “we need to move the needle” by going “back to the room” to “discuss how we can address the concerns of 20 people.”

Moments later, however, the House careened into a fifth vote without substantial additional negotiations.


“You’ve been having my favorite president [Donald Trump] call us and tell us we needed to knock this off,” one of the GOP rebels, Lauren Boebert of Colorado, said ahead of the fifth vote.

“I actually think it needs to be reversed. The president needs to tell Kevin McCarthy that ‘Sir, you do not have the votes and it is time to withdraw,'” Boebert said to gasps from fellow Republicans.

In the fourth and fifth rounds, McCarthy received 201 votes, yet again falling short of the 217 he needed amid increasing frustration from the majority of Republicans who support him.

“The pro-McCarthy side, there’s anger out there right now,” Don Bacon (R-Neb.) told reporters after the House adjourned Tuesday.

“There’s the chaos caucus, the Taliban 19, Taliban 20 … There’s anger because we negotiated in good faith and gave a lot more than we ever wanted,” Bacon sizzled.

A former House leadership aide involved in anti-McCarthy maneuvering told The Post the plan was to continue to block McCarthy and House Majority Whip-designate Steve Scalise (R-La.) from becoming speaker until both men removed themselves from consideration for the post. At that point, the floor would be thrown open to nominations until a compromise conservative candidate emerged.

However, a pro-McCarthy source pushed back, saying the GOP leader “ain’t budging” and planned on “staying in until he’s elected.”

The conservative dissenters voted for Donalds, 44, on the fourth and fifth ballots after coalescing behind Republican Jim Jordan of Ohio on Tuesday, despite Jordan saying he didn’t want the job so he could instead grill witnesses as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.


Republican Chip Roy of Texas nominated Donalds, elected to a second term in Congress Nov. 8, by saying he was an outsider who could take on “the swamp” in Washington.

“For the first time in history, there have been two black Americans placed into the nomination for speaker of the House,” Roy said, noting that Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York also was nominated by his party.

“There is an important reason for nominating Bryon, and that is this country needs a change. This country needs leadership that does not reflect this city, this town that is badly broken,” Roy said.


Donalds grew up in Brooklyn and has served just one full term in the House after previously working in the financial industry and as a Florida state legislator.

Roy said a “new face” was needed and that he wanted new House rules to empower individual members — after years of most legislation being the product of back-room deals by party leaders who then present the results for approval.

“We should be in here having this kind of a conversation with this many people in the room about Ukraine,” Roy said. “And we should debate the merits. We should debate the ups and downs of being involved. We should debate the $45 billion. We should debate whether it should be more or less. We should debate whether it should be paid for. We should debate the result we demand. The only way you’re going to get that is if you change the rules … to make sure that we can do that.”


But pro-McCarthy legislators raged that some of the back-bench demands already have been satisfied, including a concession to allow just five members to force a confidence vote in the speaker — while others took the drama in stride.

Wisconsin Republican Mike Gallagher nominated McCarthy in the fourth round of voting, saying Wednesday that while it seems like Republicans are “airing our dirty laundry,” division within the party is a byproduct of democracy.

“My friends on the Democrat side don’t understand what’s happening,” he said. “Sure, it looks messy. But that is by design.”

Democrats seized on the impasse as evidence that Republicans are deeply divided, with President Biden telling reporters that it was “embarrassing” and “I hope they get their act together.”

Jordan, a hard-charging Republican figure known for his aggressive oversight efforts, on Tuesday nominated McCarthy for the speakership on the second of the three ballots in an apparent bid to quell the Republican revolt. But Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) nominated Jordan anyway, calling him “humble to a fault.”


“Sometimes we have to do jobs that we don’t really want to do. And sometimes we have to do jobs that we are called to do,” said Gaetz, one of the leaders of the so-called “Never Kevin Caucus.” “Maybe the right person for the speaker of the House isn’t someone who wants it so bad.”

The Republican source involved in anti-McCarthy strategy said the GOP rebels won’t turn back in part because they believe they will win, but also because of potential retribution from McCarthy — pointing to then-Rep. Jody Hice (R-Ga.) getting booted from the influential House Armed Services Committee in 2019 shortly after opposing McCarthy’s minority leader bid that year.

The source said that “at this point,” McCarthy’s decision to give in to all of their demands — such as staying neutral in party primaries and creating a select committee to investigate the politicization of the FBI and intelligence agencies — would not change the deadlock.

Some of McCarthy’s allies acknowledged as the balloting dragged on that he’s in a tough place politically.

Pete Sessions (R-Texas), who supported McCarthy on the first five ballots, told reporters Tuesday afternoon that it seemed “pretty hard” for McCarthy to win because his foes are “dug in,” calling for “an adult” within the Republican Party, such as former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), to broker a grand compromise.


Under House rules, a successful speaker candidate must receive one more than 50% of all votes for a named candidate. With 434 members in the chamber Wednesday and Spartz voting “present” on both ballots, 217 was the magic number after 218 was needed the day before.

If more members choose instead not to vote or mark themselves “present,” the vote-tally threshold would shrink.

 

[BULLY HUNTER_78]

Well going by how things are progressing pretty soon you're going to see a bigass mask-off moment of some form or fashion for the GOP. As it's been made clear they won't tolerate or accept people who aren't in on the grift. As far as requiring a constitutional amendment I'll refer to the entirety of COVID as to why that's optimistic as all get-out.

Concur that they’re going be forced to go full mask off again very soon but that’s also another minor victory. Frankly, our countrymen are quite dumb and will need an exceedingly overwhelming amount of evidence in addition to a constant quantifiable degradation to quality of life before they are spurred to action. There’s a reason the uniparty fights tooth and nail to keep the mask on.

I won’t write-off the possibility that they’ll just completely drop all pretense of following the constitution again, like they did with covid. The issue with that path is it only further devalues their legitimacy and further destroys their framework for an ordered system. They lose the ability to point to anything that stops congressman from chimping out in the future. They don’t even have the excuse that it’s an “emergency” this time.

 

[LurkTrawl]

Concur that they’re going be forced to go full mask off again very soon but that’s also another minor victory. Frankly, our countrymen are quite dumb and will need an exceedingly overwhelming amount of evidence in addition to a constant quantifiable degradation to quality of life before they are spurred to action. There’s a reason the uniparty fights tooth and nail to keep the mask on.

I had an idle thought in the shower the other day, that perhaps Jesus was being a lot more literal with the "sheep" comparison than I thought. It's amusing to think of people calling each other sheeple in ye olde whatever language.

I won’t write-off the possibility that they’ll just completely drop all pretense of following the constitution again, like they did with covid. The issue with that path is it only further devalues their legitimacy and further destroys their framework for an ordered system. They lose the ability to point to anything that stops congressman from chimping out in the future. They don’t even have the excuse that it’s an “emergency” this time.

I implore anybody here to really logic this out. Because as far as I can see, the only two outcomes that lie at the end of this ugly road the cocksuckers in government have put all of us on to tread end in either public revolt of some kind ending in a rehaul of the system, or complete totalitarian lockdown with a progression into a true one-party state.

I forget which founder said it but the guy who wanted a revolution every four or five decades probably saw this as an inevitability of government corruption.

 

[Gar For Archer]

Concur that they’re going be forced to go full mask off again very soon but that’s also another minor victory. Frankly, our countrymen are quite dumb and will need an exceedingly overwhelming amount of evidence in addition to a constant quantifiable degradation to quality of life before they are spurred to action. There’s a reason the uniparty fights tooth and nail to keep the mask on.

I won’t write-off the possibility that they’ll just completely drop all pretense of following the constitution again, like they did with covid. The issue with that path is it only further devalues their legitimacy and further destroys their framework for an ordered system. They lose the ability to point to anything that stops congressman from chimping out in the future. They don’t even have the excuse that it’s an “emergency” this time.

Yeah, the thing is, it’s already guaranteed that no matter the outcome “we” (the American people) lose either way, so we might as well have them flail around injuring themselves trying to keep their grasp on power. At this point the fight is no longer about the outcome, it’s about making it harder and more painful for them to maintain the status quo.

 

[thog]

The longer they spend on this election, the more time without any bills being passed. I hope it goes at least as long as the election in 1855 did. I just hope the Freedom Caucus doesn't pussy out, like politicians tend to do.

 

[Breadbassket]

I forget which founder said it but the guy who wanted a revolution every four or five decades probably saw this as an inevitability of government corruption.

I believe you are referring to Thomas Jefferson and the concept of the "Tree Of Liberty"

In a 1787 letter to William Stephens Smith, the son-in-law of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson used the phrase "tree of liberty":


I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr. Adams I am to give my thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave through you to place them where due. It will be yet three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good articles in it: and very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a Chief magistrate eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed towards one: and what we have always read of the elections of Polish kings should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion.[1] The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. 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. It is it’s natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted.[2]

Good luck seeing this mentioned by modern politcians though because it doesn't really fit the party mythologies of either "Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglas were totally cool Republicans like us" or "those Founding Father guys were liberal in their day so they would clearly approve of what is Democrat liberal now".

 

[Bland Crumbs]

I had an idle thought in the shower the other day, that perhaps Jesus was being a lot more literal with the "sheep" comparison than I thought. It's amusing to think of people calling each other sheeple in ye olde whatever language.

I implore anybody here to really logic this out. Because as far as I can see, the only two outcomes that lie at the end of this ugly road the cocksuckers in government have put all of us on to tread end in either public revolt of some kind ending in a rehaul of the system, or complete totalitarian lockdown with a progression into a true one-party state.

I forget which founder said it but the guy who wanted a revolution every four or five decades probably saw this as an inevitability of government corruption.

I think that was our best founding father Peter Clemenza who said:
That's all right. These things gotta happen every five years or so, ten years. Helps to get rid of the bad blood.

I believe you are referring to Thomas Jefferson and the concept of the "Tree Of Liberty"

Good luck seeing this mentioned by modern politcians though because it doesn't really fit the party mythologies of either "Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglas were totally cool Republicans like us" or "those Founding Father guys were liberal in their day so they would clearly approve of what is Democrat liberal now".

When it is mentioned by the left it is pointed to as Jefferson saying anyone who wants a rebellion is some kind of ignorant asshole.

Like most things claimed by the left they only want you to see a distorted angle so they can say, "See it is exactly what we tell you that it is!!!"

 

[Vic Smackey]

I've collected my thoughts on the political happenings over the past 3 months and have come to the conclusion that I want what the deep state wants for Russia, regime change. What the holdouts are doing is increasing the likelihood with every passing failed vote. If McCarthy gets dragged over the line by Democrats he appears weak and compromised to the Republicans and if McCarthys side drag over Hareem Jeffries. Then the Republicans as a whole appear weak and compromised. In the event that no speaker is chosen then there is no more money for Ukraine which helps bring down that shitshow.

The penalties that the dissenters would face for this act they are already going to face for being MAGA anyway. The midterms taught me that the RNC needs completely hollowing out. What Macarthy, McConnel and Daniel did showed that they have no regard for the state of the country as long as they are in charge. Something people might not have noticed but the house leader vote was very close (within 6 I believe) and what Macarthy and McConnel did was to jeopardise a certain majority in both houses to cling onto power. If this is their attitude, why bother propping the house up?