Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP - the wicked witch is dead -
Scene from Wizard of Oz.

Metaphor for Former Speaker McCarthy I guess. Many other dangers ahead for Dorothy and Toto.

Not that PP, but... yes... we all know that it's a scene from the wizard of oz. But the SHOES are different from the actual movie. (Ruby slippers, remember?)
So what do the shoes mean here? Or did the poster just grab a random wicked witch image and not notice the weird shoes?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Read your whole sentence. It will be “on the Dems” when Republicans cannot elect a speaker? Why do you feel it’s Democrats responsibility to save Republicans from dysfunction?

You act as if everyone in congress is an innocent bystander. They all cast their votes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d love to hear from the democrats here. Isn’t Scalise, Jordan and Stefanik worse than McCarthy? What is the play from democrats sitting back? To be clear, I don’t think the democrats had the responsibility of saving McCarthy. I just think other options (people) for doing bi-partisan deals are worse. Scalise, Jordan and Stefanik will try to ram down MAGA policies. Sure they won’t get far in the senate. But the one thing that has to get done is the budget. And I see these three nutcases passing so 30% cut to all non-defense agencies.

I agree. I think the House Dems should have tried to make it work longer with McCarthy. The alternatives are way more extreme.

We can’t save you from yourselves.

The Democrats voted in a block with the hard right to oust a moderate Republican speaker. The fallout from that will be felt by everyone, not just the hard right.

McCarthy isn’t a moderate. The fact that he seems to you to be is suggestive of a creeping Overton window.

Politics is about compromise, and electing people who will move your agenda forward. What elements of the Democratic agenda do you think McCarthy should have agreed to move forward in order to secure their votes?

No McCarthy is not a moderate. I agree that he is a die-hard Conservative. But, McCarthy is one of the few Republicans who are actually willing to negotiate. Not only negotiate, but he is just as willing to discard promises he makes to his own party members as he is to the opposing party members. With McCarthy, everyone understands that the current deal on the table is the only deal that he will honor and only until it makes it into print where he will be bound to it. If it doesn't make it to print, you can pretty much expect him not to honor it.

But the fact remains that you will never get any of the 221 Republicans to vote for a Democrat and so the Republican that will negotiate is about the only choice for the next 15 months. If you don't, then you'll end up with the government shutting down from Nov 17 to Jan 2 and then the automatic CR at 8% drop for guns and butter spending. And that will be it until the next election. We have a dysfunctional Congress and the man who is willing to betray everyone is about the best deal that anyone can actually get passed.

So, despite him pandering to the cameras about not wanting the job and not being willing to negotiate with the Democrats, McCarthy is likely lying about those and I expect some closed-door negotiation that will come to a Ukraine deal and an appropriations deal in exchange for Democrats voting him back into the speakership.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP - the wicked witch is dead -
Scene from Wizard of Oz.

Metaphor for Former Speaker McCarthy I guess. Many other dangers ahead for Dorothy and Toto.

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.

Read your whole sentence. It will be “on the Dems” when Republicans cannot elect a speaker? Why do you feel it’s Democrats responsibility to save Republicans from dysfunction?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d love to hear from the democrats here. Isn’t Scalise, Jordan and Stefanik worse than McCarthy? What is the play from democrats sitting back? To be clear, I don’t think the democrats had the responsibility of saving McCarthy. I just think other options (people) for doing bi-partisan deals are worse. Scalise, Jordan and Stefanik will try to ram down MAGA policies. Sure they won’t get far in the senate. But the one thing that has to get done is the budget. And I see these three nutcases passing so 30% cut to all non-defense agencies.

I agree. I think the House Dems should have tried to make it work longer with McCarthy. The alternatives are way more extreme.

We can’t save you from yourselves.

The Democrats voted in a block with the hard right to oust a moderate Republican speaker. The fallout from that will be felt by everyone, not just the hard right.

McCarthy isn’t a moderate. The fact that he seems to you to be is suggestive of a creeping Overton window.

Politics is about compromise, and electing people who will move your agenda forward. What elements of the Democratic agenda do you think McCarthy should have agreed to move forward in order to secure their votes?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

To be fair, he has already been indicted, so the GOP would read this as Trump would be eligible and would have to step aside with any NEW indictments after his appointment.

Anonymous wrote:

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

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Anonymous wrote:

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:

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.