135
What a raging dickhead
*Sniveling spineless magat
If he put it to the floor, one of the triple-kookoos will call a motion to vacate and possibly oust him as speaker and apparently he thinks there's a good chance they would, or else he just wants to act like he's in control of the House and not being hand-held by the adults in the upper chamber, since the Senate bill would easily pass in the house.
Any at-risk Republican want to call the same motion if he doesn't put it to the floor?
These fuckers actively want this country to burn so they can rule the ashes. Not even making an attempt to do their jobs anymore.
Moscow Mitch did this all the time. How the hell the Speaker can unilaterally say "no" to a vote is beyond me.
This is a rules of the Senate thing, not a Constitutional thing. It can easily be changed.
We really don't need a speaker of the house at all. Eliminate the position and replace with nothing. Tired of my tax dollars paying for people that just don't wanna work anymore.
You do need a leader for any legislative body. Under normal conditions, this is fine. The problem is when you have a minority obstructionist party in power through gerrymandering, voter suppression, and an arbitrary limit on the number of members of said legislative body.
That last item is a major one. The House is capped at 435 members. It's been capped at such for just over 100 years. The US population has tripled in size since then, and we've added two states.
This arbitrary limit was in response to fierce fighting over apportionment that lasted almost a decade. So in 1929, congress said fuck it, no more increase in size.
It solved the problem of the past, but created the current problem of today, where a minority party can easily gain majority status.
/the Electoral College has entered the chat
The Electoral College has nothing to do with the position of Speaker Of the House. The evil here is the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. A law that could be repealed with a single act of congress. More info here, and again here.
Coincidentally, getting rid of that law would mean that Republicans would never again win the Electoral College.
... my tax dollars paying for people that just don't wanna work anymore.
ie. Electoral College.
😬
But that's not the Electoral College at all.
If you want to criticize something, it's helpful if you know what it is first. Neither the House nor Senate are part of the Electoral College.
The size of the House and the Senate together determine the size of the Electoral College, but no Senators or House Representatives are allowed to be members of both at the same time. In fact, no one holding any office at all can be eligible to be an Elector.
Also, the Electoral College only exists during presidential election years from the Second Tuesday in November until the Sixth day of January. That's it. Roughly two months every four years. And they aren't actually paid by the federal government. They might be paid by state governments, but I can't find any evidence of any state paying them, just laws that issue fines if they act against the will of the people and cast a faithless vote.
So no. It's not the Electoral College.
The doublespeak is deafening. He is not holding a vote because he knows that there is enough support in the House for it to pass. It would just require Democratic votes to do so, which would result in a new speaker.
There would be a motion but I don't know if any body else in the GOP wants that job. Especially with the clown show that they have become.
Pretty sure removal doesn't preclude him from being nominated again. It would just be that clown show when he was first elected all over again but he'll have even less leverage.
Making him singularly responsible for the shutdown.
If a discharge petition gets more than a majority for it, would that be considered "McCarthy holding a vote?" or would that be enough hands off for him to save his job?
He needs to choke on a fat dick
According to most sources, Putin's not that hung, though. 🤷🏼♂️
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) told members of the House GOP conference Wednesday morning that he will not bring the Senate’s bipartisan continuing resolution to the floor for a vote.
While the measure has the backing of Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, a number of House conservatives have already lined up against the legislation, pointing to the inclusion of Ukraine aid and the exclusion of border security provisions.
), who represents a district President Biden won in 2020, said he would support the Senate’s legislation and that McCarthy should bring it to the floor “if that is the only option.”
Instead, however, McCarthy said he plans to bring a GOP-crafted stopgap bill to the floor Friday, legislation that will be dead on arrival in the Senate but is meant to open negotiations with Democrats in the upper chamber.
Good told reporters that McCarthy’s stopgap measure would keep the government open for 30 days, decrease spending to a top-line level of $1.471 trillion for that duration and include border security provisions.
Good also noted that McCarthy wants to pass the stopgap “in conjunction with continuing to move our spending bills,” which has been a key demand among conservatives.
The original article contains 540 words, the summary contains 197 words. Saved 64%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2023
135 points (98.6% liked)
politics
19096 readers
2844 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