Speaker of the House Vote Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All those who voted for these clowns at any point, I hope they are proud now! What a sh*tshow!!!

Very proud. The last thing I want is a lockstep vote, like the pretend ones in communist countries. There were some major concessions to get McCarthy the speakership. He didn’t just get it because it was “his turn”

The word you’re looking for here is “authoritarian,” not “communist.” Communism seeks to establish a system without socio-economic classes and their associated struggles by vesting the workers (proletariat) with control over property and the means of production) so they can distribute wealth equitably. “Communism” by definition necessarily means the workers themselves are making all decisions. Much of what people who like to throw around terms like “communism” fail to understand is that these forms of government are in reality little more than a form of “state capitalism” under a system of one-party rule.

LOL. Have you ever experienced life under communism or met communists?

DP. Communism by default does not mean authoritarianism. But it does happen to be the case that communist systems have been taken over by authoritatians.

DP. But it does. It's a dictatorship of the proletariat. Perhaps you mean socialism?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All those who voted for these clowns at any point, I hope they are proud now! What a sh*tshow!!!

Very proud. The last thing I want is a lockstep vote, like the pretend ones in communist countries. There were some major concessions to get McCarthy the speakership. He didn’t just get it because it was “his turn”

The word you’re looking for here is “authoritarian,” not “communist.” Communism seeks to establish a system without socio-economic classes and their associated struggles by vesting the workers (proletariat) with control over property and the means of production) so they can distribute wealth equitably. “Communism” by definition necessarily means the workers themselves are making all decisions. Much of what people who like to throw around terms like “communism” fail to understand is that these forms of government are in reality little more than a form of “state capitalism” under a system of one-party rule.

LOL. Have you ever experienced life under communism or met communists?

DP. Communism by default does not mean authoritarianism. But it does happen to be the case that communist systems have been taken over by authoritatians.

DP. But it does. It's a dictatorship of the proletariat. Perhaps you mean socialism?

You're confusing rule by the people with rule by a single dictator or rule by a small politburo that wields all the power.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All those who voted for these clowns at any point, I hope they are proud now! What a sh*tshow!!!

Very proud. The last thing I want is a lockstep vote, like the pretend ones in communist countries. There were some major concessions to get McCarthy the speakership. He didn’t just get it because it was “his turn”

The word you’re looking for here is “authoritarian,” not “communist.” Communism seeks to establish a system without socio-economic classes and their associated struggles by vesting the workers (proletariat) with control over property and the means of production) so they can distribute wealth equitably. “Communism” by definition necessarily means the workers themselves are making all decisions. Much of what people who like to throw around terms like “communism” fail to understand is that these forms of government are in reality little more than a form of “state capitalism” under a system of one-party rule.

LOL. Have you ever experienced life under communism or met communists?

DP. Communism by default does not mean authoritarianism. But it does happen to be the case that communist systems have been taken over by authoritatians.

DP. But it does. It's a dictatorship of the proletariat. Perhaps you mean socialism?

👆 Get a load of this guy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All those who voted for these clowns at any point, I hope they are proud now! What a sh*tshow!!!

Very proud. The last thing I want is a lockstep vote, like the pretend ones in communist countries. There were some major concessions to get McCarthy the speakership. He didn’t just get it because it was “his turn”

The word you’re looking for here is “authoritarian,” not “communist.” Communism seeks to establish a system without socio-economic classes and their associated struggles by vesting the workers (proletariat) with control over property and the means of production) so they can distribute wealth equitably. “Communism” by definition necessarily means the workers themselves are making all decisions. Much of what people who like to throw around terms like “communism” fail to understand is that these forms of government are in reality little more than a form of “state capitalism” under a system of one-party rule.

LOL. Have you ever experienced life under communism or met communists?

DP. Communism by default does not mean authoritarianism. But it does happen to be the case that communist systems have been taken over by authoritatians.

DP. But it does. It's a dictatorship of the proletariat. Perhaps you mean socialism?

DP. I am skeptical that you understand all of the words you used there. What did you intend to communicate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All those who voted for these clowns at any point, I hope they are proud now! What a sh*tshow!!!

Very proud. The last thing I want is a lockstep vote, like the pretend ones in communist countries. There were some major concessions to get McCarthy the speakership. He didn’t just get it because it was “his turn”

The word you’re looking for here is “authoritarian,” not “communist.” Communism seeks to establish a system without socio-economic classes and their associated struggles by vesting the workers (proletariat) with control over property and the means of production) so they can distribute wealth equitably. “Communism” by definition necessarily means the workers themselves are making all decisions. Much of what people who like to throw around terms like “communism” fail to understand is that these forms of government are in reality little more than a form of “state capitalism” under a system of one-party rule.

LOL. Have you ever experienced life under communism or met communists?

DP. Communism by default does not mean authoritarianism. But it does happen to be the case that communist systems have been taken over by authoritatians.

DP. But it does. It's a dictatorship of the proletariat. Perhaps you mean socialism?

You might want to re-examine the writings of Weydemeyer. The Paris Commune is an example of a post-revolutionary organizing structure adopted in opposition to counterrevolution. It is an necessary intermediary step to communism as espoused by Marks and Engels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All those who voted for these clowns at any point, I hope they are proud now! What a sh*tshow!!!

Very proud. The last thing I want is a lockstep vote, like the pretend ones in communist countries. There were some major concessions to get McCarthy the speakership. He didn’t just get it because it was “his turn”

The word you’re looking for here is “authoritarian,” not “communist.” Communism seeks to establish a system without socio-economic classes and their associated struggles by vesting the workers (proletariat) with control over property and the means of production) so they can distribute wealth equitably. “Communism” by definition necessarily means the workers themselves are making all decisions. Much of what people who like to throw around terms like “communism” fail to understand is that these forms of government are in reality little more than a form of “state capitalism” under a system of one-party rule.

LOL. Have you ever experienced life under communism or met communists?

DP. Communism by default does not mean authoritarianism. But it does happen to be the case that communist systems have been taken over by authoritatians.

DP. But it does. It's a dictatorship of the proletariat. Perhaps you mean socialism?

You might want to re-examine the writings of Weydemeyer. The Paris Commune is an example of a post-revolutionary organizing structure adopted in opposition to counterrevolution. It is an necessary intermediary step to communism as espoused by Marks and Engels.

*Marx*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Welp, guessing the 2024 raise for fed employees will be … zero.

Guessing you don’t know how federal raises are determined.

Guessing I do. Guessing I know that the House has to approve them, along with the Senate. No way Republicans will sign off on any raise for civilians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Welp, guessing the 2024 raise for fed employees will be … zero.

There's a concession to lower their pay. Does that include congresspeople?

that’s the Holman Rule, not feds in general.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Welp, guessing the 2024 raise for fed employees will be … zero.

Guessing you don’t know how federal raises are determined.

Guessing I do. Guessing I know that the House has to approve them, along with the Senate. No way Republicans will sign off on any raise for civilians.

Thanks for confirming you don’t know how it works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Welp, guessing the 2024 raise for fed employees will be … zero.

Guessing you don’t know how federal raises are determined.

Guessing I do. Guessing I know that the House has to approve them, along with the Senate. No way Republicans will sign off on any raise for civilians.

Thanks for confirming you don’t know how it works.

Assuming arguendo Biden sets a raise amount, GOP House appropriators still must weigh in. They can say nothing or make modifications, up or down. But they will come back with $0 for raises. The Senate will go along with that as part of negotiations over other things, as will Biden ultimately. It’s not just up to the president.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Welp, guessing the 2024 raise for fed employees will be … zero.

Guessing you don’t know how federal raises are determined.

Guessing I do. Guessing I know that the House has to approve them, along with the Senate. No way Republicans will sign off on any raise for civilians.

Thanks for confirming you don’t know how it works.

Assuming arguendo Biden sets a raise amount, GOP House appropriators still must weigh in. They can say nothing or make modifications, up or down. But they will come back with $0 for raises. The Senate will go along with that as part of negotiations over other things, as will Biden ultimately. It’s not just up to the president.

If they want to have any credibility they should first vote themselves $0 raises, or better yet, a pay cut.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Welp, guessing the 2024 raise for fed employees will be … zero.

Guessing you don’t know how federal raises are determined.

Guessing I do. Guessing I know that the House has to approve them, along with the Senate. No way Republicans will sign off on any raise for civilians.

Thanks for confirming you don’t know how it works.

Assuming arguendo Biden sets a raise amount, GOP House appropriators still must weigh in. They can say nothing or make modifications, up or down. But they will come back with $0 for raises. The Senate will go along with that as part of negotiations over other things, as will Biden ultimately. It’s not just up to the president.

Oh I see someone finally looked up the process, but you still don’t have it quite right .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Welp, guessing the 2024 raise for fed employees will be … zero.

Guessing you don’t know how federal raises are determined.

Guessing I do. Guessing I know that the House has to approve them, along with the Senate. No way Republicans will sign off on any raise for civilians.

Thanks for confirming you don’t know how it works.

Assuming arguendo Biden sets a raise amount, GOP House appropriators still must weigh in. They can say nothing or make modifications, up or down. But they will come back with $0 for raises. The Senate will go along with that as part of negotiations over other things, as will Biden ultimately. It’s not just up to the president.

If they want to have any credibility they should first vote themselves $0 raises, or better yet, a pay cut.

Or they can donate their entire paycheck like Former President Trump did

What a surprise his tax returns showed no such thing happened …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Welp, guessing the 2024 raise for fed employees will be … zero.

Guessing you don’t know how federal raises are determined.

Guessing I do. Guessing I know that the House has to approve them, along with the Senate. No way Republicans will sign off on any raise for civilians.

Thanks for confirming you don’t know how it works.

Assuming arguendo Biden sets a raise amount, GOP House appropriators still must weigh in. They can say nothing or make modifications, up or down. But they will come back with $0 for raises. The Senate will go along with that as part of negotiations over other things, as will Biden ultimately. It’s not just up to the president.

If they want to have any credibility they should first vote themselves $0 raises, or better yet, a pay cut.

I don’t think “credibility” is of concern.
No, federal employees are about to get skewered every which way for at least the next two years. It’s a constituency for which very few Americans have any sympathy. Feds are considered “deep state” and most believe they are too highly compensated. The 118th congress will go after feds with a vengeance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Welp, guessing the 2024 raise for fed employees will be … zero.

Guessing you don’t know how federal raises are determined.

Guessing I do. Guessing I know that the House has to approve them, along with the Senate. No way Republicans will sign off on any raise for civilians.

Thanks for confirming you don’t know how it works.

Assuming arguendo Biden sets a raise amount, GOP House appropriators still must weigh in. They can say nothing or make modifications, up or down. But they will come back with $0 for raises. The Senate will go along with that as part of negotiations over other things, as will Biden ultimately. It’s not just up to the president.

If they want to have any credibility they should first vote themselves $0 raises, or better yet, a pay cut.

I don’t think “credibility” is of concern.
No, federal employees are about to get skewered every which way for at least the next two years. It’s a constituency for which very few Americans have any sympathy. Feds are considered “deep state” and most believe they are too highly compensated. The 118th congress will go after feds with a vengeance.

"Very few?" "Deep state?" I think you overestimate the reach of nut job MAGA mentality.