# Community > General Discussion / Chit Chat >  Voting for Speaker of the House

## TysonLPrice

I've watched the voting for the speaker of the house, or have been listening in the background, for the entire proceedings.  It is unprecedented; it has been something like a 100 years since a speaker wasn't elected on the first vote.  I'm listening right now to the nineth vote.  The political rhetoric is at plus 100%.

In the last vote 20 people did not vote for McCarthy.  I'm a Democrat so I'm enjoying the show.  As an American I can see two years of chaos in Washington coming up.

Anybody even watching?

----------


## wes4dbt

> I've watched the voting for the speaker of the house, or have been listening in the background, for the entire proceedings.  It is unprecedented; it has been something like a 100 years since a speaker wasn't elected on the first vote.  I'm listening right now to the nineth vote.  The political rhetoric is at plus 100%.
> 
> In the last vote 20 people did not vote for McCarthy.  I'm a Democrat so I'm enjoying the show.  As an American I can see two years of chaos in Washington coming up.
> 
> Anybody even watching?


Chaos is the norm.  lol

Two years of not much getting done, maybe that's the best possible outcome.  

I am surprised that they keep voting.  Seem like they would know if they had secured the necessary votes.  All these votes seem to be embarrassing and a waste of time.

----------


## dilettante

McCarthy is a kind of "missing link" Republican who is all but a full on Romneycrat.  He isn't fooling anyone who feels answerable to populists from the political center of the spectrum, but that doesn't mean others won't eventually fall in line and vote for this punch bowl floater.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

McCarthy is a spineless opportunist. Those who want a robust Republican house (which means not just one investigation of Hunter Biden, but several concurrent investigations) don't trust him cause they know him. Those who want to get something done don't trust him because they know him.

----------


## wes4dbt

I don't get this constant re-voting.  If you haven't come to an agreement with enough of the people voting against you then what's the point?

----------


## OptionBase1

> I don't get this constant re-voting.  If you haven't come to an agreement with enough of the people voting against you then what's the point?


I'm no expert at the parliamentary process in Congress, but I'm pretty sure that literally nothing can happen in the House procedurally until the speaker is elected.  So, basically, either the House has to be in recess, or if they are in session, they have to be in the nomination/voting for speaker process.  Those are the only options right now.

----------


## wes4dbt

> I'm no expert at the parliamentary process in Congress, but I'm pretty sure that literally nothing can happen in the House procedurally until the speaker is elected.  So, basically, either the House has to be in recess, or if they are in session, they have to be in the nomination/voting for speaker process.  Those are the only options right now.


You could be right, I don't know.  Still, why not recess until your able to line up the necessary votes?  There's probably a good reason, I just don't know it.

Just curious, have any of the votes changed?  Have they gotten  closer?

Hopefully this continues for two years.   lol

Edit:

This is nothing, in 1855 it took 133 votes.  Buckle up buttercup.  lol

----------


## Steve R Jones

McCarthy and the rest of them have a large number of "assistances" in the back ground twisting each others arms and working behind the scene. 

I'd think that Biden's insults about how the Repubs are an embarrassment would help motivate them.

SIDE NOTE:  Lauren Boebert reminds me too much of Lorena Bobbitt. (the sliced off husbands willy lady) She wants so desperately to play with the big kids....

----------


## FunkyDexter

> It is unprecedented; it has been something like a 100 years since a speaker wasn't elected on the first vote.


My inner pedant can't help pointing out that you're using the word "unprecedented" entirely incorrectly  :Stick Out Tongue: 

I agree, though, that this is weird to watch.  I don't know much about McCarthy beyond him being a bit spineless but it also seems like he's really the only game in town (short of electing the top Democrat which would be... even weirder).  The hold outs don't seem to have any policy demands and really just want to burn the world down to revel in the publicity.  It's like a performative art piece.

It's not often I find myself agreeing with the likes of Trump and Taylor Green but, on this, they're right; take the win you've got.  It may not be exactly the one you want but the one you want isn't on offer.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> I'm no expert at the parliamentary process in Congress, but I'm pretty sure that literally nothing can happen in the House procedurally until the speaker is elected.  So, basically, either the House has to be in recess, or if they are in session, they have to be in the nomination/voting for speaker process.  Those are the only options right now.


They are not sworn into this congress.  Even incumbents.  They are all congressman elect.

----------


## TysonLPrice

Part of the reason is for years the republicans turned a blind eye to the extreme rhetoric from the party's really right extremists.  I think they encouraged it a bit.  It is like you raised bad children and now they are home for Christmas.

They won't even condemn a guy that blatantly lied his way into congress...

https://nypost.com/2022/12/26/rep-el...ls-of-his-bio/

----------


## TysonLPrice

> My inner pedant can't help pointing out that you're using the word "unprecedented" entirely incorrectly 
> 
> I agree, though, that this is weird to watch.  I don't know much about McCarthy beyond him being a bit spineless but it also seems like he's really the only game in town (short of electing the top Democrat which would be... even weirder).  The hold outs don't seem to have any policy demands and really just want to burn the world down to revel in the publicity.  It's like a performative art piece.
> 
> It's not often I find myself agreeing with the likes of Trump and Taylor Green but, on this, they're right; take the win you've got.  It may not be exactly the one you want but the one you want isn't on offer.


How am I using the word wrong?  It has been unprecedented in the last 100 years.




> It's not often I find myself agreeing with the likes of Trump and Taylor Green but, on this, they're right; take the win you've got. It may not be exactly the one you want but the one you want isn't on offer.


I disagree...cheating, lying, and all the other notorious actions may give you victory but you lost the moral ground.  Maybe that doesn't matter and they feel no shame.  I wasn't raised that way and I don't want to be that way.  I'd rather take the loss and hold my head high.

----------


## TysonLPrice

Matt Gaetz nominated Donald Trump yesterday.  On the eve of the January 6th attempt to usurp Democracy he nominated  the person wo was instrumental in the insurrection to head the institution he attacked just two years ago.  YIKES!

----------


## dilettante

Trump makes no sense in this role for a number of real reasons, without invoking imaginary ones.

He doesn't have experience with committee work and would probably get impatient and quit very early.  Wrong temperament for the job.

----------


## techgnome

Also, while there is nothing specifically that says the Speaker has to be a member of the House ... their parliamentary duties requires them to be. So, yeah, while anyone could be nominated, there isn't a decent reason why they would elect since that person wouldn't be able to discharge their duties appropriately.

-tg

----------


## FunkyDexter

> How am I using the word wrong?


This statement is untrue:-



> It is unprecedented;


This one is true:-



> It has been unprecedented in the last 100 years.


... the qualifier made all the difference.  Like I said, though, it was sheer pedantry of me to point it out :Smilie: 




> Matt Gaetz nominated Donald Trump yesterday


I don't think he meant it to be taken seriously.  He was trolling McCarthy.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> This statement is untrue:-
> 
> This one is true:-
> 
> ... the qualifier made all the difference.  Like I said, though, it was sheer pedantry of me to point it out
> 
> I don't think he meant it to be taken seriously.  He was trolling McCarthy.


NP...My qualifier was a bit phony  :Stick Out Tongue:

----------


## TysonLPrice

> Trump makes no sense in this role for a number of real reasons, without invoking imaginary ones.
> 
> He doesn't have experience with committee work and would probably get impatient and quit very early.  Wrong temperament for the job.


Not for the Trump supporters.

1.  Elected speaker - third in line for the Precidentcy.
2.  Eliminate Biden.  Trumpers would stop at nothing to do that.
3.  Eliminate Harris.  Not beyond the reach.
4.  Trump is President.

I'm surprised you haven't posted a link to that yet  :Smilie:

----------


## TysonLPrice

Vote number fourteen is minutes away.  I think McCarthy may have it now.  He gave up all his power to get power.  What would be the right word "irony"?

----------


## Steve R Jones

Kevin McCarthy elected speaker of the House following chaos on the floor.

The California Republicans narrow victory came on *the 15th ballot*  the fifth-longest speaker vote in American history by number of ballots and the longest such vote in 164 years.

----------


## TysonLPrice

I think the next two years will results in either the end to our Democracy or the end of the republican party as we know it.  I hope it is the latter.  But, on the other hand, maybe we will just continue with this slow train wreck.

----------


## Steve R Jones

Seems like that all the Repubs want to do in investigate and impeach people. Not sure how that will help put more food on tables...

----------


## TysonLPrice

> Seems like that all the Repubs want to do in investigate and impeach people. Not sure how that will help put more food on tables...


A few stated top priorities are:

Hunter Biden and his China dealings and lying on a gun application.  And how Joe Biden was involved.
Biden's withdrawal from Afghanistan.
The Biden administration weaponing the FBI and DOJ (Something Trump turned into an art).
Firing the 67,000 new IRS employers that are going after middle America.
Investigations into the January 6th rioters being mistreated.
Things like that.

I wiling to bet anyone the country will be going into default over the debt limit and the government will shut down a few times.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> I think the next two years will results in either the end to our Democracy or the end of the republican party as we know it


I think it's still _possible_ for the republicans to turn themselves around but increasingly unlikely.  I kinda feel like the failed red wave and this debacle on the speakers vote have acted as something of a wakeup call for many of the more grounded republicans (who are honestly still the majority in the party).  The problem they face is that the extremists have become a loud enough voice to cripple the party for one or maybe two election cycles if the moderates choose to take them on.  Is that a price they're willing to pay?  Is it even a price given that the extremists seem to be crippling the party anyway?

----------


## dilettante

Party realignments are probably assured, but predicted outcomes?

We have already seen this on a "retail level" with individual politicians switching parties for the last 6 years.  Romneycrats have all but joined with the full-on Unipartians now.  Little remains to be done aside from handing out the new team jerseys.

That leaves room for a new second party less globalist and interventionist than the Uniparty.  Far more forward-looking and responsive to constituents' best interests.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

This is going to get interesting. One of the concessions McCarthy had to give them was that any one member can put his leadership to a vote. The way it was worded, it could be ANY member, but I assume that it's perhaps more 'just Republicans'. In other words, they've got him over a fire, which they can heat up whenever they feel like it. I'd be surprised if he lasts a year.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> Party realignments are probably assured, but predicted outcomes?
> 
> We have already seen this on a "retail level" with individual politicians switching parties for the last 6 years.  Romneycrats have all but joined with the full-on Unipartians now.  Little remains to be done aside from handing out the new team jerseys.
> 
> That leaves room for a new second party less globalist and interventionist than the Uniparty.  Far more forward-looking and responsive to constituents' best interests.


Actually, a LOT remains to be done. The number of times that the parties have truly changed are quite few. The number of times when it looked like they might are quite numerous. One can always predict that there's little left to be done aside from "handing out the new team jerseys", but one would also have been wrong far more often than they would be right. Technically, the last times the parties dissolved and reformed was just prior to the Civil War. They did a pirouette in the 60s over Civil Rights, but continued the same dance, just on different positions. We're nowhere near either of those points with either current party.

The Democrats, which were always a larger tent, seem to have figured things out. I don't expect them to move all that much because there isn't a good reason to. What do they lose by staying moderate? Nothing at all, based on the last election. Meanwhile, it might look like the Republicans are dividing, but that still seems quite unlikely. If the moderates were to leave, where would they go? Do they become Democrats? Probably not, as they come from Republican districts for the most part, and their voters won't follow them across the aisle. Do they become independent? A few might, but for most of them, that just means that they lose everything. What committees will they end up on? They won't chair anything, as neither party will put them forwards. There aren't enough independents to form a meaningful voting block, so that's not a route to anywhere. 

They have no choice. If they want to stay in office, and want to have any influence in our system, they will stay in the party they are in. What they might be able to do is tug that party in one direction or another, but what the fight for the Speaker has shown is that doing so isn't going to be easy.

----------


## Steve R Jones

> The Justice Department is STILL investigating Florida Republican Representative* Matt Gaetz* on the possibility that he violated federal sex trafficking laws. There are a number of allegations, including whether or not the congressman had a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old and paid for her to travel with him. Gaetz, who was a strong ally of former President Donald Trump, has confirmed that he's being investigated but denies the allegations.


Why is he being seen in public and speaking?

----------


## dilettante

I saw the Unipartian Mike Rogers' name come up in one Gaetz-centered fracas.  I still remember how he had benefitted from gerrymandering to glom onto a pseudopod reaching into this area, basically disenfranchising everyone living here.  He was so universally hated that during a high school Homecoming Parade a "bunch of kids" pelted him and the convertible he was riding in with plain cake donuts from a heavily wooded lot along the route.

That was the late 1980s I believe, and local paper writeups had a field day talking about "colonists dressed as Indians" for this "tea party."  He was tarred for years as a Tory colonizer and representative of "King George," and he remains a local laughingstock.

----------


## FunkyDexter

> Why is he being seen in public and speaking?


...because the freedom caucus are _all_ about protecting the children.  That's why they repeatedly nominated Jim Jeffries, who helped cover up sexual abuse during his time at Ohio State.

Oh wait, that would be rank hypocrisy  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic): 

There's an awful lot of projection from that wing.

----------


## TysonLPrice

> Why is he being seen in public and speaking?


I think they decided not to prosecute that underage thing...

----------


## TysonLPrice

> ...because the freedom caucus are _all_ about protecting the children.  That's why they repeatedly nominated Jim Jeffries, who helped cover up sexual abuse during his time at Ohio State.
> 
> Oh wait, that would be rank hypocrisy 
> 
> There's an awful lot of projection from that wing.


You meant Jim Jordan...

----------


## FunkyDexter

> You meant Jim Jordan


Yes, I did.  Brain fart :Smilie: 

Guess that makes us even on the whole unprecedented thing...

----------


## dilettante

I thought the hate mob was being redirected to target Mel Gibson now.  Or do we expect a fresh hate thread to be started here for that?

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

Why, has he done something different? His drunken, anti-Semitic, rant was well over a decade back. It kind of seemed like he'd gotten his drinking under control. Has that changed?

----------


## FunkyDexter

Yeah, I haven't heard anything new about Mel in a while.  If there's red meat... dish.

I have to say, for how awful his antisemitism is, it still pales in comparison to The Patriot.

----------


## wes4dbt

> Yeah, I haven't heard anything new about Mel in a while.  If there's red meat... dish.
> 
> I have to say, for how awful his antisemitism is, it still pales in comparison to The Patriot.


I guess that depends on what side of the pond your on.  There was nothing offensive to me in The Patriot.  Except Heather Ledger was died.

----------


## wes4dbt

> That's why they repeatedly nominated Jim Jeffries


I'd prefer Jim Jefferies.  That has some real entertainment potential.

----------


## FunkyDexter

It's an assault on history.  Mind you, Braveheart's a pretty close contender.

----------


## wes4dbt

> It's an assault on history.  Mind you, Braveheart's a pretty close contender.


A movie that's not historically correct.  Damn you Mel Gibson!!!!!

----------


## dilettante

The bit I heard had to do with making a film about the Rothschilds.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

Had to look that one up. Looks like it isn't quite accurate. He was briefly linked to a film called Rothchild, which wasn't about that one family (Rothschild, rather than Rothchild)...and never got made. He was to be an actor in the movie, not director....and that story was from 2019. For some reason, it has resurfaced this year.

----------


## FunkyDexter

It was about the Rothschilds, though focussed on a fictitious member who's booted from his rich, banking family and is trying to get back in.  Apparently the film was indeed called Rothchild rather than Rothschild but, let be honest, if I say "Hitlar did nothing wrong", you know what I'm referring to.  It does seem to have dropped out of production so, yeah, probably moot at this stage.

Given his previous antisemitism I can see how it'd cause all sorts of heat and smoke.  Personally, I wouldn't necessarily condemn his involvement but would wait to see what the film was like.  If it leaned too far into the "Jews control the world from behind the scenes" trope, then yeah, I'd condemn that.

----------


## dilettante

Hmm.  Sounds like there isn't any smoke there then, much less heat.  Seems odd then that another forum site that entertains these sorts of threads had one pop up Sunday and get a score or more of rabid hateful posts in just hours.  It's NYC-centered though, so that might be a factor.

----------


## FunkyDexter

NYC's full of love.  Haven't you seen Ghostbusters 2?!

----------


## wes4dbt

> Hmm.  Sounds like there isn't any smoke there then, much less heat.  Seems odd then that another forum site that entertains these sorts of threads had one pop up Sunday and get a score or more of rabid hateful posts in just hours.  It's NYC-centered though, so that might be a factor.


NYC does seem to be a hotbed of antisemitism.  Here on the West coast you hardly ever even hear the word "Jew".  I'd say most of the west coast hate is aimed at the Asians and illegal Mexicans and parts further south.

----------


## dilettante

Well we have to go by where members claim to be from, so anything goes really.  Most of the rest involved list Toronto.

----------


## Shaggy Hiker

> NYC does seem to be a hotbed of antisemitism.  Here on the West coast you hardly ever even hear the word "Jew".  I'd say most of the west coast hate is aimed at the Asians and illegal Mexicans and parts further south.


Yeah, that does seem to be the case. In Idaho, it is probably Mexicans and central American migrants (actually, people who complain don't seem to know the difference, and generally can't tell either one from the various tribal groups out here).

----------


## TysonLPrice

"House Republicans form committee to investigate the government"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...te-government/

Let the revenge begin...




> The House on Tuesday approved a GOP resolution to create a select subcommittee that Republicans say will launch a far-reaching examination of the agencies and people that investigated Donald Trump and that Democrats describe as an unprecedented breach of protocol on criminal probes and national security matters.


This is just the beginning of the attempts to politically attack any democrat in their sights.

----------


## techgnome

What is this a Monty Python movie?



> "Those who are responsible for the sacking, have been sacked"


-tg

----------

