Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pundits, media, some Rs, "Dems should have cut a deal with McCarthy."
McCarthy farewell speech, "I'll never cut a deal with Dems."

I don't get the shoes in this image. what does it mean?

for those blaming the dems, please read this full thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaker Trump or Scalise both have a nice ring to it.

Trump is ineligible under the current rules, which cannot be changed under an interim speaker. Scalise is your hard right dreamboat.

The constitution says otherwise.

No, current rules stipulate House Leadership may not be under indictment. Trump is under indictment. Read the rules.

Not to mention he does not hold any elected office …

WHO CAN RUN FOR SPEAKER? Under the U.S. Constitution, the House speaker does not have to be a member of Congress. That is the reason some Republicans have floated the name of former President Donald Trump for the job, even though he is running for president and has said he does not want the job.

And no wonder he does not want the job …

But even if Trump were to be elected to the position with full Republican support in the House, Rule 26 of the GOP Conference states, "A member of the Republican Leadership shall step aside if indicted for a felony for which a sentence of two or more years imprisonment may be imposed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaker Trump or Scalise both have a nice ring to it.

Trump is ineligible under the current rules, which cannot be changed under an interim speaker. Scalise is your hard right dreamboat.

The constitution says otherwise.

No, current rules stipulate House Leadership may not be under indictment. Trump is under indictment. Read the rules.

Not to mention he does not hold any elected office …

The Speaker doesn't need to be an elected member to the House. That much is understood in the Constitution.

Anonymous wrote:Pundits, media, some Rs, "Dems should have cut a deal with McCarthy."
McCarthy farewell speech, "I'll never cut a deal with Dems."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am neither Republican nor Democrat but I do notice that all Democrats along with the 8 Republicans voted against McCarthy while 210 Republicans voted for McCarthy.

But somehow the 8 Republicans are extremists while the Democrats are not?

It takes two to tango, you know.

Let me explain it to you then. The opposition party never votes for the majority party’s candidate for speaker because they don’t support his policies.

Thats fine, but this will be on the Dems when CR is over in 45 days and republicans could not elect a house speaker.

It is on the Rs who voted on the rule to allow this to happen back in January. It is on the Rs who brought this to a vote this week. It is on their leadership and members to elect a new speaker. You really expect the democrats to babysit this lot of children after having the rug pulled out by McCarthy more than once?

And further, it is on the Rs who didn't vote for the CR and the Rs who made sure it had to be a CR instead of the full deal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am neither Republican nor Democrat but I do notice that all Democrats along with the 8 Republicans voted against McCarthy while 210 Republicans voted for McCarthy.

But somehow the 8 Republicans are extremists while the Democrats are not?

It takes two to tango, you know.

Let me explain it to you then. The opposition party never votes for the majority party’s candidate for speaker because they don’t support his policies.

Thats fine, but this will be on the Dems when CR is over in 45 days and republicans could not elect a house speaker.

It is on the Rs who voted on the rule to allow this to happen back in January. It is on the Rs who brought this to a vote this week. It is on their leadership and members to elect a new speaker. You really expect the democrats to babysit this lot of children after having the rug pulled out by McCarthy more than once?

Anonymous wrote:Trump would be great as speaker.

The entertainment factor would be wild! Do eet.

The job of Speaker is 100% about negotiation. And Trump is a TERRIBLE negotiator! We saw that when he was in office! Couldn't get a damn thing done with the trade situation. One day with the pharmaceutical lobbyists and his drug reform plan got sh*tcanned. He supported the funding bill in 2018, Congress got all the votes lined up, and then he watches Ann Coulter and the next day he torpedoes the whole thing. Did the same type of thing with China and currency manipulation. He was going to do it in 2017 and then he made friends with Xi over chocolate cake. A few days later he changed his mind. Two years later we did it anyway. He killed the Trans Pacific Partnership because he thought it helped China when in fact China was not part of it. Let that sink in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaker Trump or Scalise both have a nice ring to it.

Trump is ineligible under the current rules, which cannot be changed under an interim speaker. Scalise is your hard right dreamboat.

The constitution says otherwise.

No, current rules stipulate House Leadership may not be under indictment. Trump is under indictment. Read the rules.

Not to mention he does not hold any elected office …

Pundits, media, some Rs, "Dems should have cut a deal with McCarthy."
McCarthy farewell speech, "I'll never cut a deal with Dems."

Anonymous wrote:We're rapidly coming up on one year of Republican control of the House. Not only have they accomplished nothing (and certainly nothing on their supposed agenda), it seems like they're going backwards.

Apparently, the Republicans are blaming the Democrats for the removal of speaker McCarthy. The Republicans are now planning to punish the Dems and the Dems moderates are wringing their hands.

I hope this is the start of treating republicans the same way they treat democrats. Maybe the younger generation will not feel the need to rescue the Republicans from themselves. This is what the voters wanted when they vote Republican. Let them have it. No more moderating the RWNJs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:wait, didn't McCarthy say he rejected a deal with dems to save his speakership. I swore that came out on the news last night.

And Frank Luntz emotional washout against the dems last night for not saving McCarthy was hilarious. Buddy, get a clue.

Yes he said yesterday he was not willing to make a deal to save his speakership.

There was no deal to be had. He's offered the radical right everything but hookers and blow.

Anonymous wrote:We're rapidly coming up on one year of Republican control of the House. Not only have they accomplished nothing (and certainly nothing on their supposed agenda), it seems like they're going backwards.

Well they took America hostage twice so far, and I'm sure they count those as partial victories.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaker Trump or Scalise both have a nice ring to it.

Trump is ineligible under the current rules, which cannot be changed under an interim speaker. Scalise is your hard right dreamboat.

The constitution says otherwise.

No, current rules stipulate House Leadership may not be under indictment. Trump is under indictment. Read the rules.

We're rapidly coming up on one year of Republican control of the House. Not only have they accomplished nothing (and certainly nothing on their supposed agenda), it seems like they're going backwards.