The Everything 118th Congress Thread

[skinsmarydu]

2 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

 

Like Brian in Family Guy.

[bearrock]

From the moment McCarthy had trouble getting the necessary votes to be speaker, he had two options: (1) compromise with the moderates in both parties to win the speakership and keep his gavel or (2) seek to win and maintain his position with only support from his party, including the bat**** crazy wing.  He chose option 2 and found out (to no surprise of sane Americans) that there is no middle ground to be found with Tea Party/Freedom Caucus/MAGA (whatever new name du jour they come up with for "we just want to burn the ****ing place down" party).  Play stupid games and win stupid prizes. 

 

We'll continue doing this periodically until someone takes option 1 or enough Americans permanently reject the nut jobs.  I used to think that enough people will wise up once they realize the so called conservatives they vote in actually want to burn down their supporters' houses, but now I think the supporters would just cheer on as their economic house turns to ashes.

[balki1867]

[TradeTheBeal!]

[Larry]

3 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

WUT?  This is an even worse take than above.  The Dems all lined up behind Jeffries, as every caucus always does (see point above about Pelosi never receiving a GOP vote across 4 Speaker elections).  The GOP has the majority, so it is THEIR responsibility to elect a Speaker from among their caucus.  And it is THEIR fault that they don't have a clear person for the caucus to line up behind, and its THEIR fault that they don't have a single person who Democrats could actually support AND who could garner enough GOP votes.  

 

Yes.  You're all clearly right.  

 

The majority Party is absolutely required to unanimously support a Speaker.  The minority Party's votes do not count in any way.  

[PleaseBlitz]

54 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Yes.  You're all clearly right.  

 

The majority Party is absolutely required to unanimously support a Speaker.  The minority Party's votes do not count in any way.  

 

Obviously nobody said that, or anything close to it.  

[gbear]

However, one is only the "majority party" if enough of them can decide on a spokesperson to set a direction.  If not, they are basically just a bunch of separate opposition parties unable to unite behind any platform besides, "not the other guys."

[Larry]

Just now, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Obviously nobody said that, or anything close to it.  

 

Really?  The message behind "The Democrats elected a Speaker without a single Republican vote" is . . . ?  

 

In fact, the pushback against any statement that the unanimous Dem vote was in any way even slightly a factor, is a way of saying . . . what?  

 

Cause I have a feeling I can find more than 20 posts saying that, just in the last three pages.  

 

[The Evil Genius]

6 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Really?  The message behind "The Democrats elected a Speaker without a single Republican vote" is . . . ?  

 

In fact, the pushback against any statement that the unanimous Dem vote was in any way even slightly a factor, is a way of saying . . . what?  

 

Cause I have a feeling I can find more than 20 posts saying that, just in the last three pages.  

 

 

Fwiw Pelosi was elected Speaker in 2021 without 100% Dem vote. 2019 also. Same thing happened for Paul Ryan in 2017 and 2015. And the same for Boehner in 2013.

 

You have to go back to Boehner in 2011 to see 100% vote by party for one candidate (other than McCarthy in Jan 2023).

Edited October 4, 2023 by The Evil Genius

[tshile]

1 hour ago, bearrock said:

We'll continue doing this periodically until someone takes option 1 or enough Americans permanently reject the nut jobs.  I used to think that enough people will wise up once they realize the so called conservatives they vote in actually want to burn down their supporters' houses, but now I think the supporters would just cheer on as their economic house turns to ashes.

I realize this is an unpopular opinion. But. 
 

I think we need a significant shut down. Meaningful services need to stop and people need to be impacted. I think it’s probably the least harmful way to try to get people to wake up and realize it’s important to have a functional government. I say that because I assume if this isn’t the wake up call, whatever will be will be way worse. 
 

Not that I want people hurt, just that I think it’s required at this point. 

[The Evil Genius]

Just now, tshile said:

I realize this is an unpopular opinion. But. 
 

I think we need a significant shut down. Meaningful services need to stop and people need to be impacted. I think it’s probably the least harmful way to try to get people to wake up and realize it’s important to have a functional government. I say that because I assume if this isn’t the wake up call, whatever will be will be way worse. 
 

Not that I want people hurt, just that I think it’s required at this point. 

 

I don't think not paying 2.3+ million people during the shutdown is good for anyone. 

[bearrock]

5 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Really?  The message behind "The Democrats elected a Speaker without a single Republican vote" is . . . ?  

 

That Democrats can compromise intraparty and reach a consensus.

 

Quote

In fact, the pushback against any statement that the unanimous Dem vote was in any way even slightly a factor, is a way of saying . . . what?  

 

That it is somewhere between naive, unreasonable, or unicorn land to expect anything other than an unanimous rebuke by the Dems when you refuse to offer a single iota of concession to the Dems, who you apparently desperately need to fend off the crazies of your party, and also go on national TV and blame the Dems for what those crazies are trying to do to you.

[tshile]

Just now, The Evil Genius said:

 

I don't think not paying 2.3+ million people during the shutdown is good for anyone. 

It’s not. 
 

I don’t think I said it was good. 
 

I think I said it’s likely the least harmful way to send a wake up call about the level of dysfunction and bull**** with our federal government. 
 

There’s decades of ignoring problems, kicking the can down the road, stoking culture war bull****, and pandering that has led to this point. And if something doesn’t change it’s going to get worse. And if this isn’t the wake-up call, I think it’s reasonable to believe whatever is will be even more harmful 

[PleaseBlitz]

36 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Really?  The message behind "The Democrats elected a Speaker without a single Republican vote" is . . . ?  

 

In fact, the pushback against any statement that the unanimous Dem vote was in any way even slightly a factor, is a way of saying . . . what?  

 

Cause I have a feeling I can find more than 20 posts saying that, just in the last three pages.  

 

 

Wow, a bit surprised you want to die on this hill.  

 

What you said was "I believe that a person's blame is equal to his power. And those small number of MAGAs, who people are trying to pin the blame on?  They have power, because they were given power by the R's and the Dems." (Emphasis in original). 

 

The point behind the message that Speakers are nearly always elected with the unanimous consent of one party is that (1) when the majority party has its **** in order, they don't need any votes from the other party (and so don't need to offer a consensus candidate) to fix their dysfunction and (2) Democrats are certainly well within their rights to join Republicans in voting for an acceptable Speaker nominee, but IN ACTUAL FACT no consensus candidate (this mythical creature that you seem to believe exists) has been offered by anyone.  I thought this was clear when I said, "it is THEIR fault that they don't have a clear person for the caucus to line up behind, and its THEIR fault that they don't have a single person who Democrats could actually support AND who could garner enough GOP votes."  

 

Are the Democrats, in your view, supposed to line up behind Kevin McCarthy to bail out a dysfunctional GOP House?  The guy that just moved a sham impeachment against the President forward?  The guy that broke his budget deal with the White House?  The guy that went on the Sunday shows THIS WEEK and blamed everything on them?  Why would any of them ever do that?  This is not about whether the Democrats could, hypothetically, vote for a consensus candidate, they certainly could, but that's just a strawman, which is why so many posters shat on your post. 

Edited October 4, 2023 by PleaseBlitz

[GoCommiesGo]

6 minutes ago, tshile said:

It’s not. 
 

I don’t think I said it was good. 
 

I think I said it’s likely the least harmful way to send a wake up call about the level of dysfunction and bull**** with our federal government. 
 

There’s decades of ignoring problems, kicking the can down the road, stoking culture war bull****, and pandering that has led to this point. And if something doesn’t change it’s going to get worse. And if this isn’t the wake-up call, I think it’s reasonable to believe whatever is will be even more harmful 

The only way you're going to get people to pay attention is if travel is disrupted or social security doesn't get paid out. We've never not paid social security during a government shutdown. People get flagged as exempt or excepted and continue to work and keep the critical things going. They do it without pay but the critical things continue. I'm an exempt employee and it sucks.

 

The way it's designed is to not cause a significant disruption to a normal day, pain points are limited to the people that are actively employed by the federal government or operate on government contracts. Government employees will get back pay but contractors typically will not be paid. 

 

The shutdown in 2018 / 2019 got everyone's attention when TSA and air traffic controllers called out sick and refused to continue working without pay. I think only 15% of social security employees were going to be furloughed if the CR wasn't passed. 

[PleaseBlitz]

19 minutes ago, tshile said:

I realize this is an unpopular opinion. But. 
 

I think we need a significant shut down. Meaningful services need to stop and people need to be impacted. I think it’s probably the least harmful way to try to get people to wake up and realize it’s important to have a functional government. I say that because I assume if this isn’t the wake up call, whatever will be will be way worse. 
 

Not that I want people hurt, just that I think it’s required at this point. 

 

Ugh I agree with tshile. 🤮

 

Kidding.  I do agree though, I think people need to be reminded of all of the things they rely on the gubmint for and that it is bedrock GOP orthodoxy to take as much of it away as possible.

 

18 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

I don't think not paying 2.3+ million people during the shutdown is good for anyone. 

 

I hear this (as I've mentioned, my neighborhood is 2/3 government employees, although many are military who wouldn't be impacted).

 

That said, the government people get paid eventually, and I think it might be worth it for them to have some short-term pain if it wakes the rest of the country up so we don't have shutdowns every time the GOP gets control of a branch of government. 

[bearrock]

20 minutes ago, tshile said:

I realize this is an unpopular opinion. But. 
 

I think we need a significant shut down. Meaningful services need to stop and people need to be impacted. I think it’s probably the least harmful way to try to get people to wake up and realize it’s important to have a functional government. I say that because I assume if this isn’t the wake up call, whatever will be will be way worse. 
 

Not that I want people hurt, just that I think it’s required at this point. 

 

Me 10 years ago would be in the mode of we have to do whatever we can to prevent the self inflicted wounds.

 

Me today may not root for a self inflicted wound (not saying that you are either), but there's only so many times that you can see the neighborhood arsonist try to start a fire and get off without consequences before you realize that you may have to worry more about protecting yourself than other things.

[PleaseBlitz]

1 minute ago, bearrock said:

Me today may not root for a self inflicted wound (not saying that you are either), but there's only so many times that you can see the neighborhood arsonist try to start a fire and get off without consequences before you realize that you may have to worry more about protecting yourself than other things.

 

I won't speak for @tshile, but I think the point is to get people to pay attention to the fact that there is an arsonist.  

[LD0506]

[Fergasun]

@Larry

Your point about moderation is fair.  I would agree with you that "we need more moderation!". But how we get there? 

 

Both parties treat the other like existential threats to America.  Most people here think another Trump presidency is just going to wreck the country.  Most on the right (and the far right is literally 40 percent of the country) feel the same way about Biden. 

 

If a Dem came out and said, "The country survived Trump before... we can do it again."  or a GOP said "Biden's bad, but he's doing some good" -- they would get destroyed by partisans on their side. 

 

Obviously, not all the GOP is hardline... but none of the moderates feel safe to talk out about it. 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

McCarthy also appointed Marjorie Taylor Greene to stand in for him as speaker whenever he couldn’t be there… But yeah, it’s the Democrats who disgraced the sacred institution 🙄👍

[bearrock]

13 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

I won't speak for @tshile, but I think the point is to get people to pay attention to the fact that there is an arsonist.  

 

Yeah, I get that.  But if the last several decades worth of parade of horrors haven't gotten everyone to sit up and pay attention, I don't know what will.  I moved from US will never default on its debt to there's a serious risk of a band of idiots causing that to happen in my lifetime.  In 10 years, it may go to inevitable, so a matter of hedging against the near certainty.  If an oath to a clean debt ceiling raise and no shutdown isn't a litmus test for every elected official, too many voters are stupid or reckless (probably both).

 

 

[Larry]

45 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

Fwiw Pelosi was elected Speaker in 2021 without 100% Dem vote. 2019 also. Same thing happened for Paul Ryan in 2017 and 2015. And the same for Boehner in 2013.

 

You have to go back to Boehner in 2011 to see 100% vote by party for one candidate (other than McCarthy in Jan 2023).

 

Ah. So your point  is "the minority party's votes are complely meaningless, if the majority party has enough votes to spare."

 

But here's a way to make this debate simpler. 

 

Did the House Dems have the power to re-elect McCarthy?  

[bearrock]

4 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

@Larry

Your point about moderation is fair.  I would agree with you that "we need more moderation!". But how we get there? 

 

Both parties treat the other like existential threats to America.  Most people here think another Trump presidency is just going to wreck the country.  Most on the right (and the far right is literally 40 percent of the country) feel the same way about Biden. 

 

If a Dem came out and said, "The country survived Trump before... we can do it again."  or a GOP said "Biden's bad, but he's doing some good" -- they would get destroyed by partisans on their side. 

 

Obviously, not all the GOP is hardline... but none of the moderates feel safe to talk out about it. 

 

Whoever thinks another Trump presidency isn't going to wreck the country, haven't been paying attention.

[The Evil Genius]

9 minutes ago, Larry said:

Ah. So your point  is "the minority party's votes are complely meaningless, if the majority party has enough votes to spare."

....

Did the House Dems have the power to re-elect McCarthy?  

 

Yes, that's exactly how Speaker elections have always happened.

 

And of course. Is anyone claiming they didn't?

 

 

Edited October 4, 2023 by The Evil Genius