|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 08 2023 03:34 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2023 02:56 FlaShFTW wrote:
Time to see how this clown fiesta is gonna pan out for Republicans in a very important 2024 election. I for one really hope moderates and even lean-right voters pay attention to this and give the Republican Party hell for the absolute shit show displayed for the past 4 days, as well as the inevitable shitshow and impending government shut down that will exist for the next 2 years. Voters have trouble remembering what happened last month. Let alone 2 years ago. No one is going to care about the speaker election by then.
It was a sideshow that people probably won't care about by next week.
It does show how pathetic progressives were for not even holding out for a healthcare vote and how conservative the Democratic party is that they argued using their majority to hold a vote to get people healthcare was unacceptable.
|
United States24663 Posts
Yes, I agree the speaker vote shenanigans of the past few days are all about how bad the progressives and democrats are.
|
On January 08 2023 05:38 micronesia wrote:
Yes, I agree the speaker vote shenanigans of the past few days are all about how bad the progressives and democrats are.
No, they were about Republican infighting over what they wanted and the minority wing using the leverage they had to get what they wanted.
One of my takeaways (besides the obvious ones) was that it showed how pathetic the progressives were in their fight and how conservative the Democratic party is that they seriously argued just having a vote on giving people healthcare was unacceptable.
|
On January 08 2023 05:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2023 05:38 micronesia wrote:
Yes, I agree the speaker vote shenanigans of the past few days are all about how bad the progressives and democrats are. No, they were about Republican infighting over what they wanted and the minority wing using the leverage they had to get what they wanted. One of my takeaways (besides the obvious ones) was that it showed how pathetic the progressives were in their fight and how conservative the Democratic party is that they seriously argued just having a vote on giving people healthcare was unacceptable.
Your take away is that the progressives should have withheld their votes for Pelosi, but in exchange for what? What did Gaetz, Boebert and the other crazies get, other than a reputation for being totally insane and impossible to work with? They got concessions about procedure and a bit more influence in some committee. I don't know what concessions the progressives got from Pelosi before voting, but seeing as their goal isn't to make the USA ungovernable (which, by all accounts, does appear to be the Freedom Caucus' goal), maybe they simply negotiated for their demands rather than holding Congress hostage for a week.
|
|
|
On January 08 2023 06:14 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2023 05:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 08 2023 05:38 micronesia wrote:
Yes, I agree the speaker vote shenanigans of the past few days are all about how bad the progressives and democrats are. No, they were about Republican infighting over what they wanted and the minority wing using the leverage they had to get what they wanted. One of my takeaways (besides the obvious ones) was that it showed how pathetic the progressives were in their fight and how conservative the Democratic party is that they seriously argued just having a vote on giving people healthcare was unacceptable. Your take away is that the progressives should have withheld their votes for Pelosi, but in exchange for what? What did Gaetz, Boebert and the other crazies get, other than a reputation for being totally insane and impossible to work with? They got concessions about procedure and a bit more influence in some committee. I don't know what concessions the progressives got from Pelosi before voting, but seeing as their goal isn't to make the USA ungovernable (which, by all accounts, does appear to be the Freedom Caucus' goal), maybe they simply negotiated for their demands rather than holding Congress hostage for a week.
A vote on providing healthcare for one, which shouldn't have even required withholding their votes for a leader, but the party is so conservative they considered holding a vote for providing healthcare an unacceptable proposition.
As for what the "freedom caucus" got? Hard to say for sure, but the reports are that it was a lot and that it significantly/disproportionately increased the power of the their faction. This seems to primarily come from (essentially considered "undeserved" by more traditional Republicans) seats on the crucial House Rules Committee and House Appropriations Committee. Additionally reports are they got:
- A promise for guaranteed votes on pet issues, like a balanced budget amendment, and term limits, a Texas border plan, and an end to all remaining coronavirus mandates and funding.
- A new committee to investigate the alleged weaponization of the FBI against its political foes. The committee would be modeled on the Church Committee, which investigated US intelligence agencies in 1975. It would have a budget comparable to the recently disbanded Jan. 6 Committee.
- More single-subject bills to allow members to vote on specific, narrow issues instead of thousand-page pork barrel behemoths.
- A 72-hour window for members to read any new bill before it can be voted on.
- A promise to refuse any increase in the debt ceiling in the next federal budget agreement.
- A single member will be allowed to introduce a “motion to vacate,” a vote on ousting the speaker
nypost.com
I don't know that progressives got anything for caving and can't assume they did? Obviously they didn't get the progressive version of all that though, right?
|
|
|
I think the speaker vote could be forgotten quickly but the compromises and promises given from the vote will keep it in peoples minds when it comes to things like cutting Medicare and social security, aid to Ukraine, refusals to compromise with the senate to pass anything, and every vote of no confidence that gaetz needs like 4 other people and every dem to succeed with, then we do this carnival all over again.
|
On January 08 2023 06:48 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2023 03:01 oBlade wrote:On January 08 2023 01:56 JimmiC wrote:On January 07 2023 14:05 oBlade wrote:On January 07 2023 12:51 JimmiC wrote:On January 07 2023 12:34 oBlade wrote:On January 07 2023 12:21 Sermokala wrote:On January 07 2023 12:19 oBlade wrote:On January 07 2023 12:12 gobbledydook wrote:On January 07 2023 11:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Totally agree. I don't know if it's because of some sacred tradition to vote in person, or because the average age of Congresspeople is 137 and they think a mobile app is fast food you order at the beginning of your dinner, but there's no excuse for doing a second and then a third round of checking in with each of them, one at a time. They're running our country, yet we treat them with kid gloves.
[quote]
I would be shocked if moderate/establishment Republicans voted against McCarthy for making too many compromises with the nutjobs, but it would be pretty entertaining to see complete pandemonium erupt during the votes. The moderates have no alternative. Every alternative to McCarthy is either a Democrat or is more right wing than him. So the moderates who are voting for McCarthy are more right wing than McCarthy? He's saying that there is no alternative speaker than McCarthy. Got it I didn't realize "moderates" were prohibited from voting for one another. There are not enough of them. Further splitting the vote does not help. So its either a dem, mccarthy, or someone further right the captures the ultra far right holdouts. If there aren't enough "moderates" then they probably weren't that moderate to begin with. You and McCarthy seem to share the same assumption that his speakership is preordained. If that's the case, and you like him so much, some nice moderate Democrats could easily vote for him to stop him from caving to the FAR RIGHT ULTRA CONSERVATIVE Republicans who want their Speaker to actually represent the interests of those who elected the representatives and are pushing for term limits, appropriations amendments, floor amendments, and mandatory time to read bills. Nope, Im not saying what I think should happen, Ive said that earlier. Im saying what is happening. People care more about which team they are on over their values. I can't find it in the last couple pages. You said either a Democrat, McCarthy, or someone "further right" (meaning McCarthy is to a probably disagreeable amount "right"). Since you know it would never have been a Democratic Speaker of a Republican majority House I'm guessing you are just shutting down at being challenged with the notion that you must in some way prefer McCarthy over others? On January 08 2023 01:56 JimmiC wrote:It clear many republicans values allign more with modrate dems than with the wackos who belive in jeeish space lasers or pay young girls to have sex with them and fly them over state lines. But in the US its party over logic. Yeah... It's unfortunate that Democratic representatives are so weak as to toe the party line at all costs even over logic? If I'm understanding you right? I agree. When's the last time you've seen anyone stand up to Pelosi or Schumer or Hakeem the same way these maverick Republican reps just took the House to a historic 100-year high 4 days of 15 floor votes before running out of things to ask for. The AOCs of the Democratic party should be ashamed of themselves. Also my impression is this is kind of like hedging your bets on why you can inevitably disagree with whatever McCarthy and the House Republicans are going to end up doing. If Kevin does something, he's being an evil Republican, if he does something Gaetz likes, then he is a spineless genuflecting coward who is letting crazies control everything. If Kevin doesn't do anything, then he's a failure at standing up to the evil ultra far alt right who are going to block his perfectly reasonable McCain-like Republican agenda. Something like this is my impression of the flowcharts being finalized in people's brains right now to filter the next 2 years of politics. On January 08 2023 01:56 JimmiC wrote:
And why are you so upset by the term far right? Who is right of the people you support? Get over it, own it, you super thr ultra far right. Or change who you support. This is not me being mean, its reality. Unfortunately I don't really know what you're talking about except I find the term "far right" extremely useful in identifying propaganda, hit pieces, and people whose thinking stops at labels. Let me draw a hypothetical picture: Left Moderate Right H |||||| |||| ||||| |||||| || |||| McCarthy || | Here is a case where we take for argument's sake that McCarthy is far right, and the "only alternatives" were people further right, or Democrats (not pictured except Hakeem Jeffries). This means that all those helpless moderates have nobody else they could vote for. It is electorally asinine to suggest among 222 people there were no "alternatives" except working from the axiom that McCarthy was the only option. Lack of imagination. Left Moderate Right H |||McCarthy || |||| ||||| |||||| || |||| || | Here is another case, in which we also accept that the only "alternatives" to McCarthy are people further right (i.e. more evil), but in this case it's because McCarthy is a moderate already, to which I say, so what's the problem. At any rate it's a misunderstanding to essentially try to analyze politics and an electoral calculus over (your perceived) like politicalcompass scores of these people and why they would or wouldn't vote for one another and what they believe in. Much of the rebellion against McCarthy is that he is simply not trustworthy - he is beholden to where the money comes from and has sold out voters in the past. Finally, I fail to see in this case how pushing for: single issue bills, appropriations amendments, mandatory periods to read bills before they pass, spending caps, legislation on Congressional term limits, Texas border action, and a "Church" committee to investigate the surveillance state... are far right. I dont know what your going on about, I do not like McCarthy i would have been much happier if some moderate Reps would side with the Dems but they wont.
You don't like McCarthy and you don't like the people who don't like McCarthy. I got that I said it before so I'm wondering why the cognitive dissonance isn't setting in. I have a feeling if they had voted for him on the first ballot, we would be hearing how Republicans are "cultists" who all voted for their corrupt swamp leader Kevin Luntz, or alternatively that the "Freedom Caucus" are actually all-talk no-action pussies who won't do anything when push comes to shove. Or since they voted "present" after 15 ballots, we can smear them with both insults, not just say the House of Representatives chose a speaker with a majority of votes from among 435 voting among themselves as is constitutionally prescribed.
It took only 2 months for voting to go from a sacrosanct democratic right to "embarrassing." I'm "embarrassed" by people who passed elementary school civics thinking it's lawmakers' job to simply rubber-stamp whatever the money says to do. This is the reason you can see the media dress up how "crazy" people are for bringing a debate and discussion to Congress even to the extent a GOP lawmaker calls them "terrorists" - literally for the act of voting. It's important for order that you think THEY'RE the lunatic terrorists - for speaking and voting on the floor of Congress - because they threaten McCarthy, which means they threaten the money, which means they threaten the establishment, which is the same club that Pelosi and everyone else is in and we can't have people going after them.
On January 08 2023 06:48 JimmiC wrote:Far right is a term to describe people who are right of center and far from it. It describes the holdouts, though they are also populists and it describes you. Here is a link to the definition, if you do not like this one google your own. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics
Okay I googled my own and it says "anyone who remotely strays from the tenets of the successor ideology."
From a relative standpoint, in your caricatured view of the Republican party in a super-realistic one-dimensional spectrum where there's all these endless far rights (apparently including McCarthy himself although I can't get a clear answer on that), and only a few moderates who for some reason you think have no choice but to vote far right - instead of accepting the generous and detailed plans that House Democratic leadership proposed to form a center coalition - I would posit that the outliers would be the opposite of moderates. Like it's paradoxical for a tiny minority to be moderates, except by invoking hyperbole about fascism, if I had a team of chess players who were rated 2300 and above, and there was one 1800 player, he wouldn't be a "moderate," he would be a "loser" in this subset. But anyway since House Democrats seem to have made no efforts to negotiate to actually get one of their own guys in and I haven't seen these supposed "moderates" of yours complaining about having no choice but to vote for McCarthy I'd suggest there's no evidence for what you think is going on in the GOP actually happening.
|
|
|
|
|
On January 08 2023 23:36 oBlade wrote:
You don't like McCarthy and you don't like the people who don't like McCarthy. I got that I said it before so I'm wondering why the cognitive dissonance isn't setting in. I have a feeling if they had voted for him on the first ballot, we would be hearing how Republicans are "cultists" who all voted for their corrupt swamp leader Kevin Luntz, or alternatively that the "Freedom Caucus" are actually all-talk no-action pussies who won't do anything when push comes to shove. Or since they voted "present" after 15 ballots, we can smear them with both insults, not just say the House of Representatives chose a speaker with a majority of votes from among 435 voting among themselves as is constitutionally prescribed.
Bruh, it's not the technicalities here. In theory vetoing McCarthy is actually great. They get concessions, and we don't instantly endorse new bills or speakers. That is awesome. There can be a debate that progressives shouldn't have caved in too much for Pelosi a fear years ago. Sure.
The issue at hand is akin to a playground decision, where every year the elementary kids get to vote on which new playground equipment gets installed for next year. Most kids vote for the tire swings, while others vote for a sandbox.
But there is a group of 20 kids who simply want to veto and say
"I want an PS5 in all classrooms!"
"No! I want pizza as a lunch option every day!"
And the teacher or principle has to remind these 20 kids that this vote is for outside of the school, on the playground.
|
|
|
|
|
On January 10 2023 12:23 Gahlo wrote:
Both suck, next.
Both? Is this just a pointless oneliner whataboutism or are you including Merrick Garland?
|
On January 10 2023 12:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Both? Is this just a pointless oneliner whataboutism or are you including Merrick Garland?
As in I fully expect Republicans to use this as an opportunity to downplay Trump taking documents he shouldn't have. It's not whataboutism when there's a track record of "Yeah, well what about the Democrat doing it?" and then looking like a shocked Pikachu meme when I don't give "my guy" a pass for his shitty behavior.
|
And significantly less awkward when you read that Biden cooperated with returning them and didn't need an fbi search to get them back. Oh, and 100s of records weren't seized. But yes very awkward and totally something people should care a lot about and call double standards or whatever.
|
On January 10 2023 12:45 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2023 12:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 10 2023 12:23 Gahlo wrote:
Both suck, next. Both? Is this just a pointless oneliner whataboutism or are you including Merrick Garland? As in I fully expect Republicans to use this as an opportunity to downplay Trump taking documents he shouldn't have. It's not whataboutism when there's a track record of "Yeah, well what about the Democrat doing it?" and then looking like a shocked Pikachu meme when I don't give "my guy" a pass for his shitty behavior.
Well, and Republicans are going to try and equate the two, despite the two situations being of completely different scale. Did Trump return all his boxes of documents, or did he get away with hiding and taking them? They find "nearly 10" of Biden's documents, which definitively do not contain nuclear information, after which Biden's team promptly responds cooperatively to bring them back to the proper chain of custody.
Not like I'm trying to give Biden a pass. It's just that this only sounds like what Trump did if you just read the headline. The whataboutism is insinuating that this is some kind of political riposte against folks who had problems with what Trump did.
|
On January 10 2023 12:45 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2023 12:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 10 2023 12:23 Gahlo wrote:
Both suck, next. Both? Is this just a pointless oneliner whataboutism or are you including Merrick Garland? As in I fully expect Republicans to use this as an opportunity to downplay Trump taking documents he shouldn't have. It's not whataboutism when there's a track record of "Yeah, well what about the Democrat doing it?" and then looking like a shocked Pikachu meme when I don't give "my guy" a pass for his shitty behavior.
It's not even the same shitty behavior. Trump deliberately loaded up boxes of classified documents and moved them to Mar-a-Lago in his final days in office.
|
On January 10 2023 13:17 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2023 12:45 Gahlo wrote:On January 10 2023 12:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 10 2023 12:23 Gahlo wrote:
Both suck, next. Both? Is this just a pointless oneliner whataboutism or are you including Merrick Garland? As in I fully expect Republicans to use this as an opportunity to downplay Trump taking documents he shouldn't have. It's not whataboutism when there's a track record of "Yeah, well what about the Democrat doing it?" and then looking like a shocked Pikachu meme when I don't give "my guy" a pass for his shitty behavior. Well, and Republicans are going to try and equate the two, despite the two situations being of completely different scale. Did Trump return all his boxes of documents, or did he get away with hiding and taking them? They find "nearly 10" of Biden's documents, which definitively do not contain nuclear information, after which Biden's team promptly responds cooperatively to bring them back to the proper chain of custody. Not like I'm trying to give Biden a pass. It's just that this only sounds like what Trump did if you just read the headline.
Exactly. Biden shouldn't have had them but these 2 situations stop being the same at "they both had documents they shouldn't have had."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
