• Baden
    14.1k


    You mean this guy on the right.

    iezq8w3lktouwa3b.jpeg
  • Hanover
    9.5k
    41gosgr3bet9gjv7.jpg
    I know nothing of him, but he's said to be a bit nuts, so I'd vote for him assuming he can run with a football.
  • Baden
    14.1k


    Karl Marx's Irish Grandson. Not sure about football but he can belt a sliotar from one end of the pitch to the other.
  • universeness
    4k

    Is that no jist oor big yin (Billy Connolly, withoot his specs!), huvvin a wee laff wi you yankie doodles by posing as a polly tician?

    billy-connolly.jpg
  • Hanover
    9.5k
    At least our radicals are worth looking at.

    tmemmhqhigpb86oy.jpg
  • 180 Proof
    11k
    Fuck me, suppose Kevin McCarthy can't get to 218 in January ...

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/757431
  • Maw
    2.7k
    GOP fucked up so bad Georgia will have two democratic senators until at least 2027
  • 180 Proof
    11k
    Addendum to

    2022 midterm election results (Federal)

    U.S. House (D) – Dems -10 seats
    U.S. Senate (D) – Dems +1 seat

    NB: Since 1934, the average midterm results by first term President's party is -25 House seats and -1 Senate seat.

    The People have spoken. — US Senator Raphael Warnock (D-Ga), re-elected 12.06.22
    :clap: Thanks, Georgia!
  • 180 Proof
    11k
    Fuck me, suppose Kevin McCarthy can't get to 218 in January ...180 Proof
    :yikes: :scream:
    House Republicans are on the verge of becoming a total clown show. — MAGA Clown Sean Hannity, 03Jan23
    :rofl:
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/01/04/live-updates-kevin-mccarthy-speaker-of-the-house-vote/10985244002/

    Either Dems Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries D-NY or ... "Individual-1" (aka "Defendent-1") as next Speaker of the House of Representatives??? :brow:
  • Wayfarer
    16.7k
    They keep describing the republican dissidents as 'ultra conservatives', when in actual fact, as mentioned above, they're radicals. They don't want to govern, the want to bring down the government.
  • Benkei
    6.1k
    So why doesn't Hakeem Jeffries get it if he consistently gets the most votes?
  • 180 Proof
    11k
    The rules of the US Constitution House of Representatives requires the Speaker to win the majority of votes of all members-elect present. When all 435 are present, the Speaker is elected with "218" or more votes. Minority Leader Jeffries is only winning "212" (all Dems). If, however, enough GOP members-elect (12 or more) get frustrated enough and don't show up for a vote, then "212" might become the majority number of votes. The rules for electing a Speaker can be changed by a majority ("218") votes. :roll: Btw, the last time a shitshow like this happened in the US Congress was 1923 ...
    https://www.axios.com/2023/01/03/house-speaker-election-congress-mccarthy-1856
  • Mikie
    4.5k


    I look at it a little different. I think that’s what they CLAIM. But I think a more accurate picture is that people like Gaetz and Boebert want to make a show of things, this way they can claim to be disruptors. I imagine they’ll work something out eventually— how long they manage to keep this up, who knows. Eventually the pressure will be too great. You even have Trump and Greene coming out against them.

    If only they had real visions and values.
  • Wayfarer
    16.7k
    Meanwhile in Kentucky.....


    Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina has said a non-negotiable for him is if McCarthy is “willing to shut the government down rather than raising the debt ceiling.”

    If these kinds of people cause a US debt default, then it's brush up your survival skills and buy lots of tinned supplies well in advance, because the resulting economic disruption will make The Great Depression seem like a picnic. And they're willing to do it! Some of them at least believe they are doing God's work.
  • Benkei
    6.1k
    This is going to take while.
  • jgill
    2.7k
    But I think a more accurate picture is that people like Gaetz and Boebert want to make a show of thingsMikie

    :up: "Two gun Boebert" represents my district, winning over a Democrat by a very narrow margin. I agree with your assessment. She is the far-rights' AOC.

    If these kinds of people cause a US debt defaultWayfarer

    Won't happen, but it is scary.
  • Wayfarer
    16.7k
    Maybe they wouldn't do it on purpose, but they've shown they're willing to play chicken with the fate of the world in service to their lunatic ideology. Although from a more hopeful perspective, we could be seeing the death throes of MAGA Republicans, as they prove beyond shadow of doubt that they're unfit for office.
  • Wayfarer
    16.7k
    Marjorie Taylor Greene: 'I never thought leopards would eat MY face,’ sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People’s Faces Party.'NY Times

    From the same column:

    (McCarthy's) mistake was convincing himself that a party obsessed with dominance would reward submission.
  • Benkei
    6.1k
    Thanks! So why aren't the Dems making a deal? Seems they benefit from a split GOP instead of letting them reach a deal where concessions are made on who campaigns where.
  • 180 Proof
    11k
    Never interrupt your opponent while he's fucking himsrlf over – said: Sunzi? Julius Caesar? Napoleon? Bismarck? Nancy Pelosi? :smirk:

    Either Dems Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries D-NY or ... "Individual-1" (aka "Defendent-1") as next Speaker of the House of Representatives??? :brow:180 Proof
    My 2 bit(coin)s are on a half dozen GOP members-elect making a deal with the Dems and voting for Jeffries within a week unless McCarthy gives up (and probably resigns from Congress in disgrace) allowing the GOP caucus to vote in a powerless stooge as Speaker.

    Caveat: "Individual-1" is improbable (becoming less so with each day that passes without a resolution) but not impossible.
  • Hanover
    9.5k
    Thanks! So why aren't the Dems making a deal? Seems they benefit from a split GOP instead of letting them reach a deal where concessions are made on who campaigns where.Benkei

    The Republicans are infighting for power, trying to portray it is ideological, but it's far from consistent.

    McCarthy, it is argued, is an old school lobbyist controlled Republican who the newer right (Trump like) Republicans don't like because they want to "drain the swamp," meaning clear out the old guard power structure.

    There are at least 5 Republicans (supposedly far right) who have declared they'll never vote for McCarthy. There are 20 or so who said they'll always vote for him.

    Here's where it stops making sense entirely. Marjorie Green is a hard core Trumpian, yet she is heavily aligned with McCarthy. Boebert has moved away from Trump after winning by only 1000 or so votes last election, but she's aligned with the never McCarthy group. Trump himself supports McCarthy. Gaetz is a never McCarthy person and he nominated Trump for speaker and then cast the single vote for him.

    So, while they pretend it's about ideology, they're really just supporting the person who will give them the best committee assignments and that's what they're making deals over right now.

    They will never cede power to the Democrats or align themselves with them. They're just selfishly taking advantage of the power vacuum and trying to fill it.
  • Baden
    14.1k


    Can you explain to me how any legislation is ever going to get passed seeing as anything the HFC don't want to veto will never get through the Democratic senate?

    As in what is even the point of being speaker if you guarantee your own legislative impotence?
  • Mikie
    4.5k
    Can you explain to me how any legislation is ever going to get passed seeing as anything the HFC don't want to veto will never get through the Democratic senate?Baden

    There’s nothing to explain. Legislation simply won’t be passed the next two years— beyond the most necessary bills, and even then not without some brinksmanship.
  • Hanover
    9.5k
    Can you explain to me how any legislation is ever going to get passed seeing as anything the HFC don't want to veto will never get through the Democratic senate?

    As in what is even the point of being speaker if you guarantee your own legislative impotence?
    Baden

    Anytime you have divided chambers, you have a certain amount of gridlock, and that gridlock has progressively grown over the years with increased polarization. It's especially a problem where the margins of control are so minimal, so that you can have a group of 5 or so radicals who can hold their entire party hostage unless concessions are given. You saw something similar in the Senate where the Democrats had a 50/50 split, with the tie being decided by the Democrat VP, so Democrat Manchin seized complete power by not voting lock step and making himself the deciding swing vote.

    Where I do think there is strong Republican alignment is over their disdain for the Democrats, meaning this will not result in increased harmonization where the parties actually start working together so that moderate factions can gain power through consolidation. That would expect a very Parliament type reaction from the American sharply divided system. Diverse groups do not pool their resources under the American system to increase their power. They fight until their mutual death like God intended.

    The American system, IMHO, is designed by intent toward maintaining a status quo, especially in times of political discord, restraining the government from instituting significant change when there is disagreement. Handicapping the government is intentional because it is generally distrusted, as it was created by a bunch of rebels who thought government was inherently tyrannical. Your ancestors know that well, having been left behind with the tyrannical British for all those additional years. Damn those bastards!

    What we're seeing is the system functioning as expected, and it's really (I'm hoping) the final fallout of the Trump years, where the party divided into two groups, one the traditional Republicans and the other Trump Republicans, where the traditional ones had to hold their breath until Trump went away. Trump's vindictiveness for lack of loyalty by attacking members of his own party and subjecting them to primaries destroyed the cohesiveness and makes this break today in the House not that unusual. You have a good number of Republicans (who seem to be symbolized by McCarthy) who are ready to take the party back to where it was prior to Trump and this is hopefully the beginning of that, with fuckheads trying to stop it.

    The winners from the infighting and division are obviously the Democrats, who stopped the red wave from happening with a pretty lackluster and unpopular President. I'm rooting for the Democrats to make some real gains during this so that the Republican party can implode and erect as something not so stupid. The only platform I can decipher that the Republicans have at this point is that they want to investigate Hunter Biden. That's super duper important apparently. As if to be a Republican means you like investigations so we can know shit, fuck legislating over anything else. Even Desantis, the great Trump expected replacement, announces he wants to investigate Fauci. Can they just fucking stop? If I learn in 3 years I wore a mask I didn't really need to wear, I guess I'll be really proud to have been a Republican to now know that.
  • Baden
    14.1k


    Dr Fau..ci <>Dr Fau..stus. I suppose you think there's nothing to see there...
  • Hanover
    9.5k
    Dr Fau..ci <>Dr Fau..stus. I suppose you think that's a coincidence...Baden

    I don't believe in coincidences in our perfectly constructed universe.
  • Baden
    14.1k


    Well, I edited it to spoil your reply, so I did something worthwhile today...
  • Wayfarer
    16.7k
    The Republican extremists have increasingly resorted to threats and blackmail to get what they want, and blackmail is definitely not 'politics as usual'. There are dire predictions of the hard right using the threat to block the debt ceiling increase to extort concessions from the Government, mainly to reduce spending on social services, a tactic which was initiated by Newt Gingrich, although he at least showed a modicum of common sense in deploying it (as per this NYT OpEd.) But, sow the wind, reap the whirlwind, as the saying has it, and Gingrich laid the foundation for this destructive phase of right-wing radicalism. And as has been pointed out, Government borrowing is to cover costs already incurred by the Government. If the Republicans want to reduce spending, well and good, but they need to go to the polls on that basis, and win elections to do it, not use extortion tactics to bludgeon their way
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.