Speaker of the House Vote Thread

[Anonymous]

Ya gotta win.
Everybody loves a winnah.
That’s what they say,
Everybody loves a winnah.

If Kevin can’t win,
He’s a losuh.
If you don’t win,
You lose, OK?

So, I’m against him,
Unless he wins.

In which case I was for him,
Just so you understand.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So this was all about money? The Russian funds must really be drying up.

CLF money kept noted psycho Laura Loomer out of Congress.

[Anonymous]

Ultimately, if McCarthy had expelled the insurrectionist House members, he would have won on first ballot.

[Anonymous]

No more votes tonight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So this was all about money? The Dussian funds must really be drying up.

Told y’all it was all FAKE. But everyone laps up this fake nonsense all year. Reality tv for dorks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No more votes tonight.

What do you mean? Why isn't the House going into a quorum call?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a way, I kind of admire the hold outs. We know what McCarthy will bring: more tax cuts for the 0.01%. The guy from Florida with one marijuana bust in his childhood can't be worse? maybe he would actually support the working class?

You mean the GQPer that also has a felony bank fraud conviction? In 2000? That guy?

It was expunged. Do you know what that means?

Also, he seems to have reformed since then. Whatever his politics, he's a success story. In no way qualified to be third in line, but not a felon.

Pretending it never happened didn’t mean he didn’t commit the crime for which he was convicted.

So you don't know what expunged means. Or success story.

I’m well aware of its meaning — that is, records relating to the crime are to be destroyed by law enforcement and he is permitted to deny the fact of his arrest for purposes of things like job applications unless he is applying for certain positions such as on law enforcement. It doesn’t negate the fact he defrauded a bank through the act of bribery for which he pled guilty. Add to this the fact it was granted purely on the basis of politics. And I don’t consider chss asngung his party affiliation from D to R so as to grift at the teat of the racist Tea Party Movement to be a success. It’s just another con.

If you look more closely at his history, he pled guilty to bribery in a plan to defraud a bank in 2000 and then the conviction was expunged in 2016. In between, he worked in finance. So a lot of people thought his story was convincing. Not you, but lots other people.

“A lot of people”? A dozen? A hundred? A thousand? And his “story” was “convincing” in exactly what way? You’re just pulling stuff from your posterior..

It’s also unclear how someone with a back fraud felony was working in “finance.” He certainly wasn’t a CFP or hold a Series 7 and 63.

I read the wiki page. You can too. Make of it what you will. Before the conviction was expunged, he was able to get several jobs in finance. Those people decided to hire him.

George Santos also had a bio on his “wiki” page.

So maybe it's all fake. Clearly you dislike the guy so there's no point in having a discussion. I'm not on board with his politics but I don't hold his non-criminal history against him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All they had to do was expel the insurrectionists from Congress 2 years ago.

Yep.

[Anonymous]

I do love watching the Black Women running the show today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a way, I kind of admire the hold outs. We know what McCarthy will bring: more tax cuts for the 0.01%. The guy from Florida with one marijuana bust in his childhood can't be worse? maybe he would actually support the working class?

You mean the GQPer that also has a felony bank fraud conviction? In 2000? That guy?

It was expunged. Do you know what that means?

Also, he seems to have reformed since then. Whatever his politics, he's a success story. In no way qualified to be third in line, but not a felon.

Pretending it never happened didn’t mean he didn’t commit the crime for which he was convicted.

So you don't know what expunged means. Or success story.

I’m well aware of its meaning — that is, records relating to the crime are to be destroyed by law enforcement and he is permitted to deny the fact of his arrest for purposes of things like job applications unless he is applying for certain positions such as on law enforcement. It doesn’t negate the fact he defrauded a bank through the act of bribery for which he pled guilty. Add to this the fact it was granted purely on the basis of politics. And I don’t consider chss asngung his party affiliation from D to R so as to grift at the teat of the racist Tea Party Movement to be a success. It’s just another con.

If you look more closely at his history, he pled guilty to bribery in a plan to defraud a bank in 2000 and then the conviction was expunged in 2016. In between, he worked in finance. So a lot of people thought his story was convincing. Not you, but lots other people.

“A lot of people”? A dozen? A hundred? A thousand? And his “story” was “convincing” in exactly what way? You’re just pulling stuff from your posterior..

It’s also unclear how someone with a back fraud felony was working in “finance.” He certainly wasn’t a CFP or hold a Series 7 and 63.

I read the wiki page. You can too. Make of it what you will. Before the conviction was expunged, he was able to get several jobs in finance. Those people decided to hire him.

George Santos also had a bio on his “wiki” page.

So maybe it's all fake. Clearly you dislike the guy so there's no point in having a discussion. I'm not on board with his politics but I don't hold his non-criminal history against him.

Who hasn’t engaged in a little bank fraud here and there

[Anonymous]

are we doing the Exact Same Vote Again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So this was all about money? The Dussian funds must really be drying up.

To clarify, the Cingressional Leadership Fund is the SuperPAC “aligned” with McCarthy. It’s not like they’re legally permitted to coordinate horse-trading like this:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So this was all about money? The Dussian funds must really be drying up.

To clarify, the Cingressional Leadership Fund is the SuperPAC “aligned” with McCarthy. It’s not like they’re legally permitted to coordinate horse-trading like this:

And if they are not who would prosecute them…there are laws for some but not for republicans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So this was all about money? The Russian funds must really be drying up.

Told y’all it was all FAKE. But everyone laps up this fake nonsense all year. Reality tv for dorks.

It’s not fake if the whole reason that the 20 R members against McCarthy are pissed is because he’s directing dark money towards more normal Rs so there won’t be more crazy Rs voting against McCarthy.