164
At the rate it's going over there, the UN might have to send in peacekeepers fairly soon. And no, I didn't put this in the wrong topic.
Maybe call in hostage negotiators?
Sorry, we don't negotiate with terrorists.
at this rate they're gonna run out of old white dudes
You vastly underestimate the GOP’s ability to produce old white dudes
Wow, we're at 9 now?
9... So far
Republicans shitting all over the house so no work can get done.
This is the real reason. It saves them from having to reuse other bullshit excuses to prevent any work from getting done.
"See, Big Government, is the problem, they can't even do their job right, much less run country" - Republican Representatives
Is 9 too old for Matt Gaetz?
Pretty sure he'd take three 3-year-olds and call it square.
How many of them voted to overturn the 2020 election?
I believe 7 of the 9 did. There are 2 Republicans running who didn't try to overturn the 2020 election. Of course, the Freedom Caucus will oppose those candidates, keeping them from getting enough votes.
One of the reports I heard about on the news this morning is that the MAGA wing demands that any speaker nominee be an election denier, which is one of the many reasons that Jordan refused to answer the question about whether he still believes the election was stolen.
It's probably easiest to just label them all Corrupt Old White Guy 1 through 9.
Well they have to have somebody labeled Token Black Guy up there…
Yeah I saw that.
One of four black House Republicans.
One of four, in a body of 221 house GOP reps.
That's 1.8%. An amazing statistic even compared to house GOP women at 16%.
Getting a real I Am Spartacus vibe from myself right now.
I'm thinking of running for Speaker.
I don't know anything about you, but I'm certain you're at least as qualified as these clowns.
There are no good options here. 7 of the 9 voted to not certify the 2020 election results.
Tom Emmer, the MN rep who is emerging as a front-runner of the two that did vote to certify, is just as bad but more politically savvy, having repeatedly cast doubt in the election results and refused to acknowledge Biden even won after the election. He's a partisan willing to do and say anything for right-wing causes, but unlike the pure chaos members, can make calculated long-term decisions about political effects.
The other person who voted to certify is Austin Scott, who the Internet seems to know nothing about. Maybe he's the best option here? The "not enough information to confirm verifiably terrible" option?
I think we should have them settle this with trial by combat.
I'd watch that on payperview
This week, on So You Think You Can Speak
If only this were a world where a few Republicans might defect to Jeffries just to stick it to the far right end of the party that started all this. That would cause some real drama. Wouldn't be hard to stick the blame on the magats and spin it into a message of ending the madness and ineptitude we are watching unfold.
But alas, this is not that world. Republicans would have to actually care about something other than owning the libs and dismantling the government for it to be that world.
Although, still, bipartisan support of a candidate is the only reasonable way I see out of this that doesn't just fall apart again when Gaetz can't get his way. It's too bad the Republicans have painted themselves into a corner where ceding any ground to the even the most conservative Democrats is a complete non-starter.
That would really create some drama
The rule should be if they don't get a person voted in then the democrats get to pick a republican to serve. The person chosen must serve.
I think it should be the person with the highest number of votes, Democrat or Republican.
Do you want spoiler candidates? Because that's how you get spoiler candidates
Yep, I'm one of those that likes to watch the world burn.
This is the exact way Trump won the 2016 primary.
Stuff the choices out so much that there’s 7 shit candidates and 2 almost-passable candidates. Then hope one of your 7 can outlast both of the other 2.
This could be better than the current situation but I could imagine a lot of side effects to that system. Maybe if there was a lower threshold that had to be met so we couldn't have situations where someone with 20 votes wins.
I can get behind this. A lot of effort invested into tweaking the rules of sortsball lately to keep things fresh when these are the changes we need.
I think I recognize two of them.
this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2023
164 points (94.6% liked)
politics
19089 readers
1642 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS