McCarthy loses Speaker vote 3 times…

[Route 45]

I don't know who Robert W Mal... is, but apparently he doesn't understand that "House Majority Leader" and "Speaker of the House" are two different things.

I think he’s the guy who invented the mRNA vaccines that have killed over 700,000,000 Americans, but now he says that they bad. Or something like that.

 

[Ingomike]

I think he’s the guy who invented the mRNA vaccines that have killed over 700,000,000 Americans, but now he says that they bad. Or something like that.

Now that is a slick bio-weapon, it can kill every American twice and many three times…

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I think he’s the guy who invented the mRNA vaccines that have killed over 700,000,000 Americans, but now he says that they bad. Or something like that.

I know he's one of the inventors but I don't think he ever pushed for the covid vaccine. It's one thing to invent a technology and it's another to misuse it. I don't think he deserves to be in the lump of the Fauci's, Walenski's, Biden's, etc.

 

[HoosierLife]

Term limits are built into the process. If constituents decide to term-limit their representatives, they have an opportunity to effect that outcome every two years.

I agree in principle.

But whoever is running things has figured out how to keep incumbents in office getting rich and owing favors to big business.

We added an Amendment for term limits for President, didn’t we?

We could do it again.

And that would bring in a whole new sub section of politicians that aren’t in it to get rich and powerful.

Well at least as much as it is now.

 

[chipbennett]

I agree in principle.

But whoever is running things has figured out how to keep incumbents in office getting rich and owing favors to big business.

We added an Amendment for term limits for President, didn’t we?

We could do it again.

And that would bring in a whole new sub section of politicians that aren’t in it to get rich and powerful.

Well at least as much as it is now.

We could try that, sure. I don't have any confidence that it would work. Why would the incumbents push through a constitutional amendment that threatens their incumbency?

Another approach is to spend more time, money, and effort focusing on state and local races that provide the elected officials who will eventually comprise the "bench" for candidates for federal office.

 

[Ingomike]

I agree in principle.

But whoever is running things has figured out how to keep incumbents in office getting rich and owing favors to big business.

We added an Amendment for term limits for President, didn’t we?

We could do it again.

And that would bring in a whole new sub section of politicians that aren’t in it to get rich and powerful.

Well at least as much as it is now.

Who is “whoever”?

The last I read Congress has an average 60% approval rating by the representatives constituents. Congress as a whole is currently near 20% approval rating. This means a clear majority like their congress critter and a huge majority despise everyone else's. The results of term limits mean folks are deprived of the representation they want.

I have never seen term limits as a panacea. The swamp is deep and well stocked with foot soliders. Take a hypothetical state senator that runs for the fed house and wins, they then go to DC with themselves, a consigliere, and an aide.

The party assigns a team of staff, our rep and their trusted advisers become about 20% of the team, a team that already knows what to do, and likely has ambitions and loyalties elsewhere. If we do term limits there will be unintended consequences, one of them is giving the permanent DC even more power.

Why is there such a certain belief that if only we got rid of the people in congress, the new people will be so much better?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

A good observation.

 

[Ingomike]

Good explanation of what the fight is over.

“That should get his vote total moving in the right direction, undercutting the prior momentum from the anti-McCarthy holdouts. Here’s what those concessions look like.”

• A one-member “motion to vacate”: The GOP leader appears to have finally acquiesced to a demand to lower the threshold needed to force a vote ousting a speaker to just one member. While McCarthy originally indicated that restoring the one-member “motion to vacate” was a red line, his allies now argue that there’s not a huge practical difference between this and his previous offer of requiring five members to trigger the vote.
• Rules Committee seats for the Freedom Caucus: McCarthy is prepared to give the House Freedom Caucus two seats on the powerful House Rules Committee, which oversees the amendment process for the floor. (Some conservatives are still holding out for four seats on the panel.) There are also talks about giving a third seat to a conservative close to the Freedom Caucus but not in it — someone like Reps. THOMAS MASSIE (R-Ky.). Who will pick those members? We’re told there is ongoing haggling. Typically, it’s the speaker’s prerogative, but conservatives want to choose their own members for these jobs.
• A vote on term limits: This is a key demand of Rep. RALPH NORMAN(R-S.C.), who has proposed a constitutional amendment limiting lawmakers to three terms in the House.
• Major changes to the appropriations process: Fears of another trillion-plus-dollar omnibus spending bill have been a major driver of the conservative backlash to McCarthy. The brewing deal includes a promise for standalone votes on each of the 12 yearly appropriations bills, which would be considered under what is known as an “open rule,” allowing floor amendments to be offered by any lawmaker. Conservatives also won a concession to carve out any earmarks included in those packages for separate votes, though it’s unclear if they’d be voted on as one package or separately.

Kevin McCarthy Caves

redstate.com

 

[TheTrooper]

 

[TheTrooper]

Care of WEF and Trilateral Commission.

 

[firecadet613]

I hope they nominate and vote Trump in.

It would be amazing to see the left (and many here) heads explode...

 

[maxipum]

Term limits are built into the process. If constituents decide to term-limit their representatives, they have an opportunity to effect that outcome every two years.
[/QUOTE and that is often easily defeated with gerrymandering and outright fraud so no longer “built in”.

 

[KG1]

Sounds like Gaetz voted for Donald John Trump in the latest round.

 

[DragonGunner]

Saw where AOC was talking to Gaetz from FL. She told him McCarthy tried talking to democrats to get their votes. She told him no one in her party would vote for him. It was a dead end. Bad stupid move fir McCarthy because now the 20 can show what a slime ball he is. Remember McCarthy knew for months he didn’t have votes and figured he could just threaten them into it.

 

[DragonGunner]

Sounds like Gaetz voted for Donald John Trump in the latest round.

Sounds like a bunch whispered….”can he do that? Can we do that…hmmm?” Lol

 

[Cameramonkey]

Sounds like a bunch whispered….”can he do that? Can we do that…hmmm?” Lol

Could be an interesting way to force the 20's hands. We either get DJT as speaker, or the 20 say "Holy F maybe he isnt that bad after all. Better than Trump."

 

[KG1]

Saw where AOC was talking to Gaetz from FL. She told him McCarthy tried talking to democrats to get their votes. She told him no one in her party would vote for him. It was a dead end. Bad stupid move fir McCarthy because now the 20 can show what a slime ball he is. Remember McCarthy knew for months he didn’t have votes and figured he could just threaten them into it.

If true it's a bad look. He seems more willing to do a deal with the Democrats to get the votes he needs than the Republican hold outs. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if it was true. It sounds like something he would do.

 

[spencer rifle]

We could try that, sure. I don't have any confidence that it would work. Why would the incumbents push through a constitutional amendment that threatens their incumbency?

Another approach is to spend more time, money, and effort focusing on state and local races that provide the elected officials who will eventually comprise the "bench" for candidates for federal office.

In the elections Professor Terry Moe of Stanford studied, union support was as valuable as incumbency in determining winners.

Despite the Left’s panicky talk about “corporate money” shaping our elections, unions are almost always either the top spenders or in the top few at the federal and state levels. The biggest-spending unions, and those who provide the most critical operational support to Democratic campaigns (staffing phone banks, doing door-to-door retail politics, volunteering for get-out-the-vote efforts, channeling the “walking around money” that delivers vote blocs in big-city elections, filing lawsuits to stop reform proposals), are public-sector unions. – Kevin Williamson

 

[oze]

View attachment 246257

Don't forget Trump.

 

[DragonGunner]

If true it's a bad look. He seems more willing to do a deal with the Democrats to get the votes he needs than the Republican hold outs. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if it was true. It sounds like something he would do.

They got video of it… if you can read lips. They both have commented what was said afterwards so sounds legit. But ya who knows… but I don’t see democrats voting for a R even if they are a RINO.