Vacate Watch - Speaker Mike Johnson (R - LA)

[jaF0]

They're worse than children.

Well, they claim a Giant Orange Toddler as their leader.

 

[ll74]

And who joined with those 8? So much for future bipartisan bills...but hey...it is "their" fault...vote for us

You don't seem to understand that joining them for one vote did not cause this issue.

Republicans created a rule to allow an idiot to hijack the House. It did exactly what everyone said it would do...give the minority power to disrupt.

 

[zipman]

And who joined with those 8? So much for future bipartisan bills...but hey...it is "their" fault...vote for us

They joined them because McCarthy wasn't being bipartisan. How fucking stupid are you?

Ffs, you're like a parrot who had. a lobotomy. We disagree with you. Repeating your same nonsense over and over isn't debate. It's just childish.

 

[LLCox]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us...ter-voting-against-jordan-speaker-2023-10-18/

trumptards doing what they do best.

 

[adrina]

It's just the usual blame the democrats, criticize the democrats schtick. The democrats can do no right. If they would have saved McCarthy from his own party's ineptitude they would have been criticized. Just as they are being criticized for not saving McCarthy from his own party's ineptitude.

Damned if they do and damned if they don't. They may as well take the path of showcasing the complete lack of ability to govern and the harm it does by the GOP. That may actually be helpful to the country in the long run.

At any time during this fiasco any small number of republicans could step up and fix this. They caused this. Purposely, willfully and with intent. From the top of the conference down to the junior members. And still the majority of them would rather throw the US in complete disarray than, god forbid, work with the democrats.

Disgraceful.

 

[zipman]

It's just the usual blame the democrats, criticize the democrats schtick. The democrats can do no right. If they would have saved McCarthy from his own party's ineptitude they would have been criticized. Just as they are being criticized for not saving McCarthy from his own party's ineptitude.

Damned if they do and damned if they don't. They may as well take the path of showcasing the complete lack of ability to govern and the harm it does by the GOP. That may actually be helpful to the country in the long run.

At any time during this fiasco any small number of republicans could step up and fix this. They caused this. Purposely, willfully and with intent. From the top of the conference down to the junior members. And still the majority of them would rather throw the US in complete disarray than, god forbid, work with the democrats.

Disgraceful.

All these Maga approved congress people were elected because they embraced Trump and his base and now people are learning "ooops, maybe we should have elected someone who can govern."

Although, they're probably too stupid and partisan to even have a semi intelligent thought.

 

[LLCox]

It's just the usual blame the democrats, criticize the democrats schtick. The democrats can do no right. If they would have saved McCarthy from his own party's ineptitude they would have been criticized. Just as they are being criticized for not saving McCarthy from his own party's ineptitude.

Damned if they do and damned if they don't. They may as well take the path of showcasing the complete lack of ability to govern and the harm it does by the GOP. That may actually be helpful to the country in the long run.

At any time during this fiasco any small number of republicans could step up and fix this. They caused this. Purposely, willfully and with intent. From the top of the conference down to the junior members. And still the majority of them would rather throw the US in complete disarray than, god forbid, work with the democrats.

Disgraceful.

I am ALL FOR democraps letting repukes dangle on their own rope.

 

[jomar]

…

The path forward...is through McCarthy. He has played this brilliantly...potentially removing his Party's far right wing from play. But what no one in Washington seems capable of answering...is if he would take the Position back? What we know...if he did...he would never work with anyone that voted him out...ever. Guess who that was.

Lol, you’re delusional

 

[el_uno77]

the republican house members should consider this....

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one)" in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.

 

[Bn2f]

the republican house members should consider this....

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one)" in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.

Eh…. 2 points to consider. Roddenberry and his Star Trek vision is too PC, SJW or woke (pick whichever time period, it’s all the same) for republicans and upon watching this movie they would certainly only want to be Khan - exacting revenge on Captain Kirk by going after and killing his son Hunter.

 

[jaF0]

And Kahn (The Con, Don) has a fake orange tan and funny yellow hair.

 

[Bn2f]

And Kahn (The Con, Don) has a fake orange tan and funny yellow hair.

Dammit!
Good one. Wish I had also made that connection.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Yes...but...if you follow the individual votes...you will see there are those that voted yes first round...have voted no the second round. And vice versa. You should know how it works

It's an interesting ploy....Moderate Republicans are playing "whack a mole" with a varying cast of moderates voting against Jeffries each time. This allows them to avoid being "primaried", as MAGAts have vowed vengeance against naysayers. Moderate Republicans can now say "Hey I voted for him 3-4 times...when it was obvious he wasn't going to be elected, I opted to move this country along and vote for the next best guy".

 

[jaF0]

See, that's where I have a problem. Do you JOB properly and you shouldn't have to worry about keeping it. Playing silly games to avoid being 'primaried' is not your job.

 

[jaF0]

Did Gymmie throw the towel in?

 

[RoryN]

Did Gymmie throw the towel in?

Looks like he might be done. What a fucking loser.

Meanwhile, I still maintain that giving Pelosi her office back should be part of any Dem agreement to back that angry little shit McHenry.

 

[ll74]

Looks like he might be done. What a fucking loser.

Meanwhile, I still maintain that giving Pelosi her office back should be part of any Dem agreement to back that angry little shit McHenry.

Jordan isn't out. He's just supporting the McHenry elevation of powers approach to free up the House for business while he tries to whip up more votes.

Jim Jordan To Back Patrick McHenry For Temporary Speaker Of The House, Will Remain Speaker Designee​

 

[ll74]

The House was expecting to vote at noon, but they went to recess instead.

12:05:55 PM
The Speaker announced that the House do now recess. The next meeting is subject to the call of the Chair.

 

[ll74]

Gaetz doesn't seem to understand the Constitution. The House makes the rules...so a "Speaker lite" would be Constitutional

 

[Lazaran]

It's just the usual blame the democrats, criticize the democrats schtick. The democrats can do no right. If they would have saved McCarthy from his own party's ineptitude they would have been criticized. Just as they are being criticized for not saving McCarthy from his own party's ineptitude.

Damned if they do and damned if they don't. They may as well take the path of showcasing the complete lack of ability to govern and the harm it does by the GOP. That may actually be helpful to the country in the long run.

At any time during this fiasco any small number of republicans could step up and fix this. They caused this. Purposely, willfully and with intent. From the top of the conference down to the junior members. And still the majority of them would rather throw the US in complete disarray than, god forbid, work with the democrats.

Disgraceful.

Exactly this ^.

And there is a coalition on the Democrat’s left flank that does the same thing,

JFC

SAD!!!

 

[Dribble]

Gaetz doesn't seem to understand the Constitution. The House makes the rules...so a "Speaker lite" would be Constitutional

Well...maybe. Gaetz is a moron and doesn't know what he is talking about...but there is a potential Constitutional issue

Yes, the House can change the Rules by a 50%+1 majority. But the problem...or potential problem...arises in that McHenry was not voted on...he got the position as a result of a "secret" list. If McHenry was voted on by the House as a whole...no issues. The House can freely change his duties. By changing his duties now...the order is reversed...making a potential Constitutional issue.

I think this is a bad idea...but I would like the Supreme Court to weigh in on this first...and then have a list of accepted agenda. For example, an extension of the continuing resolution of the budget as approved under McCarthy...funding for Ukraine, Israel...and humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people...and that's all.

This is a dangerous precedent

 

[ByteMe13]

Well...maybe. Gaetz is a moron and doesn't know what he is talking about...but there is a potential Constitutional issue

Yes, the House can change the Rules by a 50%+1 majority. But the problem...or potential problem...arises in that McHenry was not voted on...he got the position as a result of a "secret" list. If McHenry was voted on by the House as a whole...no issues. The House can freely change his duties. By changing his duties now...the order is reversed...making a potential Constitutional issue.

I think this is a bad idea...but I would like the Supreme Court to weigh in on this first...and then have a list of accepted agenda. For example, an extension of the continuing resolution of the budget as approved under McCarthy...funding for Ukraine, Israel...and humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people...and that's all.

This is a dangerous precedent

I wouldn’t want our corrupt Supreme Court weighing in on anything.

 

[ll74]

Well...maybe. Gaetz is a moron and doesn't know what he is talking about...but there is a potential Constitutional issue

Yes, the House can change the Rules by a 50%+1 majority. But the problem...or potential problem...arises in that McHenry was not voted on...he got the position as a result of a "secret" list. If McHenry was voted on by the House as a whole...no issues. The House can freely change his duties. By changing his duties now...the order is reversed...making a potential Constitutional issue.

I think this is a bad idea...but I would like the Supreme Court to weigh in on this first...and then have a list of accepted agenda. For example, an extension of the continuing resolution of the budget as approved under McCarthy...funding for Ukraine, Israel...and humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people...and that's all.

This is a dangerous precedent

The House makes the rules of the House. If they change the rules via the current House rules, then there is no Constitutional issue.

 

[Dribble]

One way to think about this...the names on the replacement list could have been anyone. They were chosen solely by McCarthy. It could have been Donald Trump. If precedent is set...what is stopping something unexpected?

In the future...I have no issue with the House voting on a Speaker...and each nomination publically provides a name of his replacement pro tempore. But this is not well thought out in my opinion

 

[butters]

not to mention it was a house rule that a serving speaker has to have a "secret list" of names to potentially take an interim place if the speaker's incapacitated/deposed