EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 4077
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States14045 Posts
On October 04 2023 10:22 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: I don't understand why McCarthy didn't deal with democrats more. He really wanted the speaker job and now he gets this. Like leave policies aside, the one thing you need to avoid is getting owned by Matt Gaetz. You have to do anything you can to not lose face to fucking Matt Gaetz if you are a serious person. The dude didn't response to requests to delay votes so that people could go to the funeral of a sitting senator. He started an impeachment investigation without a vote and right after dems came out to help stop the shutdown he shows up in front of a camera and blasts the only people who can save his job for voteing for a shutdown. Just yesterday he tweeted "bring it on" When he had absolutly no chance at winning any vote. Maybe he was just really bad at this politics thing. I fully bet tom emmer is going to be the speaker and lean on "ah jeez folks lets just get through this year and it'll be someone elses problem don't cha know?" energy. | ||
|
Taelshin
Canada420 Posts
Look's like he did try to make a sideways deal as far as Ukraine spending goes, but your right he's that kind of clown i'm also surprised. @Sermo I might be crazy, But can he not be re-elected as leader of the house? I think he was calling the bluff, Could be stupid, but maybe not. If I'm wrong then yeah your last point is pretty correct. Ill add more when I know what the rules are exactly. @gobbley I agree with your opinion in a sense but if my question to Sermo ends in a negative then I don't have a pure opinion on this. How ever I would say that the hope of the people that are ousting him is to elect a person of their mind-like to the speaker position. If that doesn't happen they will use this to challenge specific seats in the next election and promote canidiates more favorable to themselves ( aka populist republicans vs neo-cons). Just a thought though | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14045 Posts
On October 04 2023 13:32 Taelshin wrote: @fueledupandreadytogo "I don't understand why McCarthy didn't deal with democrats more." Look's like he did try to make a sideways deal as far as Ukraine spending goes, but your right he's that kind of clown i'm also surprised. @Sermo I might be crazy, But can he not be re-elected as leader of the house? I think he was calling the bluff, Could be stupid, but maybe not. If I'm wrong then yeah your last point is pretty correct. Ill add more when I know what the rules are exactly. @gobbley I agree with your opinion in a sense but if my question to Sermo ends in a negative then I don't have a pure opinion on this. How ever I would say that the hope of the people that are ousting him is to elect a person of their mind-like to the speaker position. If that doesn't happen they will use this to challenge specific seats in the next election and promote canidiates more favorable to themselves ( aka populist republicans vs neo-cons). Just a thought though I think thats what you're looking for. Yes theoretically he could have named himself temp speaker and just run the voting himself but I think he knows how screwed he is on being able to get enough votes now. | ||
|
Taelshin
Canada420 Posts
| ||
FlaShFTW
United States10230 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21945 Posts
On October 05 2023 04:56 FlaShFTW wrote: I doubt those moderates were happy with McCarthy considering McCarthy kept trying to appease the crazies.I'm really curious to see if we're going to finally have some moderate republicans break and build a coalition with the Democrats. The problem is, those moderates who wanted McCarthy as Speaker are probably pissed at Democrats for voting with the alt-right. So now Dems might not be able to get a foot in the door for negotiations with those Republicans to get a deal done, which means Republicans might actually go back to the alt-right faction to get another deal, but it might be as messed up as the McCarthy deal. They just didn't vote to remove him because finding a new speaker will be a clusterfuck and this further exposes the complete disarray the party is in. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11620 Posts
In such a system, instead of voting "I don't want this guy", you need to vote for someone else to replace them. This means that it is harder to gridlock the system. Because it is often easy to find a large group of people who agree that they would prefer someone else, but those people then differ widely in who that other person should be. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4858 Posts
On October 05 2023 05:03 Gorsameth wrote: I doubt those moderates were happy with McCarthy considering McCarthy kept trying to appease the crazies. They just didn't vote to remove him because finding a new speaker will be a clusterfuck and this further exposes the complete disarray the party is in. No flash is right, the moderates were big supporters of McCarthy and are pissed dem leadership whipped to vote against him instead of letting members vote present. The moderates may not like thr chaos or the likely next speaker, but they are in no mood to give anything to dem leadership when they sided with Gaetz, whom the whole GOP conference despises right now. They are still Republicans, and what took place yesterday isn't going to create any reason for them to back Jeffries. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
| ||
micronesia
United States24734 Posts
| ||
|
ChristianS
United States3244 Posts
If you wanna cut a deal with Democrats because Matt Gaetz is insane then do it, but if you’re opening those negotiations with “I expect them to give me everything I want for absolutely nothing while ignoring all the partisan bullshit I’m pulling” then fuck off, what are we doing here? | ||
|
Introvert
United States4858 Posts
Point is, there is no current incentive for a GOP rep to support Jeffries when his whole conference voted to oust McCarthy, whom they liked. It doesn't make sense. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
ChristianS
United States3244 Posts
For as much as Republicans love to whine about anti-Republican media bias, there’s definitely some implicit assumptions in coverage like this that Republican tantrums are assumed/baseline/baked-in, and all the question marks are on whether Democrats are going to concede everything in the name of unity or functional government or whatever. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4858 Posts
As an aside, the media bias goes the other way. The Dems are assumed to be the reasonable ones and the media spends all their time asking Republicans about other Republicans that they don't like. Dem press secretary is the easiest job in DC, just proclaim that your candidate is a reasonable moderate and the press repeats it dutifully. The idea that Republicans are getting a pass is absurd considering the way it's being reported right now. Every other story is DC is about how Republicans are fighting each other, want to shut down the government, etc etc | ||
|
Taelshin
Canada420 Posts
Also not sure if it was posted but Jamal Bowman(D) pulled a fire alarm in an effort to A)delay the vote B) open a door that was locked but either way, he's real dumb. https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/30/politics/jamaal-bowman-pulls-fire-alarm/index.html | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25982 Posts
On October 05 2023 08:40 JimmiC wrote: It always being the Dems fault is why they are in a race to the bottom, they can do absolutely anything. The Dems voted this way, it’s entirely fair to rope them in to any appraisal of this development. It’s myopic in the extreme to say otherwise. Whether it was a good move or not, parsed through varying political views remains to be seen. Dems went with this course of action, no amount of spin can pin this one on the GOP entirely. We’ve had borderline a decade of ‘oh well we can dance with wolves and it’ll be fine’. Unfortunately we’ve also had borderline a decade of ‘oh, it won’t, who could have predicted this?’ Many people have, emboldening the crazies is not a good idea, we’ve seen it over and over. The idea that nudging your political rival into crazy territory will see some centrist rebound in your favour just keeps on losing and losing, it’s a terrible idea. You’re going to end up with a more intransigent speaker than you’ve had before, you’re going to end up with an even more emboldened base that is seeing results from their own myopia, it’s an awful idea that isn’t going to end well. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14045 Posts
You're not entitled to the other sides support when you're actively hostile to them at almost every turn. He could have gotten more time to make a deal or whip votes. It just decided to tweet "bring it" when he knew he didn't have the votes. The abject pettieness of kicking someone out of their office and telling them to clean out by tomorrow when you know they're on the other side of the country for a funeral just shows the character of people you're dealing with. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3244 Posts
On October 05 2023 09:22 Introvert wrote: Huh? I didn't say anything about concessions, and McCarthy never asked for any, he knew the terms would be unacceptable just to save his own skin. The Dems voted not for their own guy (that happened in January), but against the guy currently in the role the because they thought that there is a very low chance that somehow one of theirs does become speaker and because chaos in the House benefits them as the minority. it's ok. They voted for Gaetz's motion because it will do them well, maybe even help them win back the House next year. Just say that instead, don't pretend like it was a vote between person A and person B, it wasn't. 96% of the GOP house members voted for McCarthy, over 200 dems and 8 republicans voted to kick him out. That's what happened, not this weird spin of "well they just think a dem should be speaker!" That wasn't the thing they were voting on. I'm not going at them too hard, were the roles reversed the vast majority of the GOP conference would do the same, but the motivation would be the same. As an aside, the media bias goes the other way. The Dems are assumed to be the reasonable ones and the media spends all their time asking Republicans about other Republicans that they don't like. Dem press secretary is the easiest job in DC, just proclaim that your candidate is a reasonable moderate and the press repeats it dutifully. The idea that Republicans are getting a pass is absurd considering the way it's being reported right now. Every other story is DC is about how Republicans are fighting each other, want to shut down the government, etc etc Uh, the vote they were presented with was “do you think Kevin McCarthy should be speaker?” What the fuck is an opposition party doing if they’re gonna vote yes to that? Or abstain? It’s not like McCarthy has been some centrist, he’s actively antagonized the Dems in every nakedly partisan way he could think of. He helped build a caucus whose primary mode of operation is parliamentary hostage-taking, why the fuck would Dems support the guy just because this time he’s the hostage? (Edit: regarding those “unacceptable terms”): I bet the Dems would have agreed to vote present in exchange for a clean bill funding the government through the end of the year. But it wouldn’t matter because even aside from the terms themselves, merely having cut a deal with Democrats would have irreparably destroyed McCarthy’s standing among Republicans. How else are they supposed to cover it? There wasn’t supposed to be a story at all. There was already a deal agreed to by both parties to fund the government. Then Republicans decided to renege and demand concessions, but they couldn’t even agree among themselves what concessions to demand. Finally McCarthy basically put up a clean CR anyway, it passed, and Republicans decided to revoke his speakership for it. It’s kind of hard to imagine how you could blame any of that on Democrats, and yet here we fucking are, discussing whether Republican moderates are right to be mad at Dems for not *supporting the Republican for speaker* and you’re trying to tell me it’s media bias that people are mostly attributing this to Republicans? | ||
| ||
