Avatar2go wrote:

From PBS NewsHour coverage, the deal is expected to get between 6 and 12 converts. The hope is that the remainder can be persuaded to vote Present.

Sorry if this is a dumb question, what does "Vote Present" actually mean ?

Avatar2go wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

From PBS NewsHour coverage, the deal is expected to get between 6 and 12 converts. The hope is that the remainder can be persuaded to vote Present.

That doesn't directly help, an actual majority of votes is needed and Present votes don't count. What it could do is weaken the resolve of the rebels as they see some votes switch away from their set of acceptable alternates to Present votes.

Present votes can help as they reduce the number of votes needed to win. But they pose a risk as well, since if there are too many Republican Present votes, the Democrats will win with Jeffries. So they have to play the game carefully.

Which could be how they accidentally end up with Jeffries as Speaker for 24 hours or something. That would be an absolute, total embarrassment for them, and would basically spell the end of their mandate.

Never interrupt your enemy when they're making a mistake. I'd expect to see all 212 Democrats present tomorrow.

Revelation wrote:

[...] anti-government inclinations [...]

I think that may be the core of the problem.

Tugg

Kiwiandrew wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

From PBS NewsHour coverage, the deal is expected to get between 6 and 12 converts. The hope is that the remainder can be persuaded to vote Present.

Sorry if this is a dumb question, what does "Vote Present" actually mean ?

In essence, an abstention. To vote Present means I'm here but won't vote for or against. Such a vote counts towards quorum, the number of members needed to make the vote legal, which is something I didn't understand earlier.

Some googling provided more context:

A few months back, the Congressional Research Service prepared a useful report on how the speaker of the House is chosen. The CRS report, relying on authoritative House practice manuals, explains that the speaker is elected by a majority of members voting “for a person by name.”

Translation: 218 votes are not necessary if (a) fewer than 435 members attend the vote, or (b) members who are present opt not to vote for someone by name — i.e., if those latter members vote “present.”

Ref: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/w ... g-present/

So, if every member is physically present, and some just vote "present" then the "present" votes serve to lower the number of votes a candidate needs to get to get the majority of the "named" votes needed to win the vote. Indeed if enough magoids vote "present" they can throw the vote to the Dem candidate without actually voting for that candidate, so they can say they never supported a Dem, they just found the GOP candidates presented to be unacceptable.

Revelation wrote:

Kiwiandrew wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

From PBS NewsHour coverage, the deal is expected to get between 6 and 12 converts. The hope is that the remainder can be persuaded to vote Present.

Sorry if this is a dumb question, what does "Vote Present" actually mean ?

In essence, an abstention. To vote Present means I'm here but won't vote for or against. Such a vote counts towards quorum, the number of members needed to make the vote legal.

Some googling provided more context:

A few months back, the Congressional Research Service prepared a useful report on how the speaker of the House is chosen. The CRS report, relying on authoritative House practice manuals, explains that the speaker is elected by a majority of members voting “for a person by name.”

Translation: 218 votes are not necessary if (a) fewer than 435 members attend the vote, or (b) members who are present opt not to vote for someone by name — i.e., if those latter members vote “present.”

Ref: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/w ... g-present/

So, if every member is physically present, and some just vote "present" then the "present" votes serve to lower the number of votes a candidate needs to get to get the majority of the "named" votes needed to win the vote. Indeed if enough magoids vote "present" they can throw the vote to the Dem candidate without actually voting for that candidate.

Thanks so much for the explanation. Politics is endlessly fascinating, but can also be difficult to follow when looking in from another country and being unfamiliar with the processes

Revelation wrote:

Meanwhile the 20 rebels have earned themselves the nickname, "The Taliban 20", because they are holding the rest of the party hostage to their demands!

Imagine the names the Fox/OANN nesty names invoked were it a woman..no Dem woman holding up the process...a Black, Latina or Asian woman..


There's test of where we stand at tolerance of a stubborn white male...yeah, that's we are a long way off from even close to equality in what and how much we'll put up with depending on the spoiler.

I don't see any level of tolerance (11 rounds of voting) lasting that long for any woman or any non-white male.


BN747

BN747 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Meanwhile the 20 rebels have earned themselves the nickname, "The Taliban 20", because they are holding the rest of the party hostage to their demands!

Imagine the names the Fox/OANN nesty names invoked were it a woman..no Dem woman holding up the process...a Black, Latina or Asian woman..


There's test of where we stand at tolerance of a stubborn white male...yeah, that's we are a long way off from even close to equality in what and how much we'll put up with depending on the spoiler.

I don't see any level of tolerance (11 rounds of voting) lasting that long for any woman or any non-white male.


BN747

There are several women holding up the voting process…

Kiwiandrew wrote:

Thanks so much for the explanation. Politics is endlessly fascinating, but can also be difficult to follow when looking in from another country and being unfamiliar with the processes

In France currently the majority group (several parties supporting president Macron) don't have an absolute majority. All other National Assembly members combined have more votes. Yet there is a NA leader from Macron's party, thanks to abstentions, negotiated in advance in exchange for a return of favor when voting for vice-presidencies, commission presidencies, etc.

This would be called a minority government in the Westminster system. The National Assembly can't call a new election, though, that's a presidential power. They can vote a motion of censure against the government.

For actual votes on laws, the same applies, the majority needs some votes from the opposition, or at least abstensions. A test of this will happen soon with a vote on increasing the retirement age, something wildly unpopular.

TriJets wrote:

BN747 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Meanwhile the 20 rebels have earned themselves the nickname, "The Taliban 20", because they are holding the rest of the party hostage to their demands!

Imagine the names the Fox/OANN nesty names invoked were it a woman..no Dem woman holding up the process...a Black, Latina or Asian woman..


There's test of where we stand at tolerance of a stubborn white male...yeah, that's we are a long way off from even close to equality in what and how much we'll put up with depending on the spoiler.

I don't see any level of tolerance (11 rounds of voting) lasting that long for any woman or any non-white male.


BN747

There are several women holding up the voting process…

Obviously Missed the point...not one woman stands alone ala McCarthys' position.
He's up against being marked 'a lifelong Loser' at this point, the' L' he cannot stomach as it alone is biggest impetus to keep clamoring for 'Speaker'. Ego. No woman is allowed that much Ego. Nor any person of color.

His insistence on all these ballot rounds are an embarrassing joke centered solely on his ego.
..and still, no way everyone would tolerate this many rounds as they are from this or any white male (a white Dem male would not place his ego/ambitions ahead of the nation).

The Republicans are a complete joke with Perry, suddenly, an expert on Race in America, pushing this unknown Byron Donalds is an insult to Blacks everyone because everyone knows were 'McCarthy' to bow out, there is no way in hell all 200 McCarthy votes would jump over along with the 17 (stunt) votes Donalds has garnered.
Were their convictions true making this kind of claim..the John Lewis Voting Rights Act would be Law today. It isn't and they certainly will not cast one single vote for it...not even Byron Donalds himself.

Not a chance in hell! That is a 'Clarence Thomas' move to put a Black face on their fake, insincere, insulting stride to soften their hard right image. That is all Donalds is good for to them.

This party, collectively has a verifiable track record on voting with regard to People of Color issues...and it is Piss Poor.
Their vaudeville act may make many whites pause and think 'Oh my, look, we are making progress...' the flashing of a Black face is all that is needed to impress upon the most ignorant on this issue.
..and Perry and ilk are playing for that alone as they string this nonsense out.

Pathetic.


BN747

Someone said if you elect clowns, don't be surprised if you end up in a circus.

BN747 wrote:

In America, until we level up to think better of our political system as certain Europeans do, multi-party would be a nighmare and not make them any smarter.

BN747

So it is not the multi-party system that is bad, but the American voter is to blame

QF7 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

It is time for the sane members of the GOP to start voting Present.

They can’t. They might want to, they might know it’s the best thing to do, but they’re stuck. They would either be viewed as stabbing McCarthy in the back or as caving in to the extortionists, neither of which would be good for their political careers.

So then they are negotiating with terrorists at the expense of American Freedom.

I was a Republican until GW Bush ran. Ever since, I’ve voted D across the board. GW Bush was and is an idiot. What I’d love to see happen is a mainstream / center right figure get the speakership. One who could get 100 Democrats onboard and 125 Republicans onboard.

TriJets wrote:

BN747 wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Meanwhile the 20 rebels have earned themselves the nickname, "The Taliban 20", because they are holding the rest of the party hostage to their demands!

Imagine the names the Fox/OANN nesty names invoked were it a woman..no Dem woman holding up the process...a Black, Latina or Asian woman..


There's test of where we stand at tolerance of a stubborn white male...yeah, that's we are a long way off from even close to equality in what and how much we'll put up with depending on the spoiler.

I don't see any level of tolerance (11 rounds of voting) lasting that long for any woman or any non-white male.


BN747

There are several women holding up the voting process…

I don't remember where I heard it but there is a thing MAGAs do when it comes to things like this. White men (women in this case) don't count. They are a "lone wolf" type and don't judge the race but Asians, Natives, Blacks, Hispanics are ALL like that when one does something bad.

Not surprised to see such chaos on the right. They are so out of touch with reality. It is not surprising red states like Texas, Mississippi, Arkansas etc. perform so poorly. Shows what an amazing leader Nancy Pelosi was for the U.S. and her party. We will see Democrats continue to make huge gains across the country with the poor "leadership" of republicans.

Tugger wrote:

Revelation wrote:

[...] anti-government inclinations [...]

I think that may be the core of the problem.

I think that'll be the eventual downfall of the magoids. I get it, they're unhappy with life, feel they have some sort of point to prove, so they use their votes to put sticks into the spokes of the government. Yet the rest of us already have enough chaos in our lives, and we're tired of watching these children in adult bodies mucking up the works. It's a big reason why the "red wave" didn't happen: we're sick of their stuff. And, no surprise, it turns out agents of chaos are really bad at organizing themselves. They know they want to mess up everything other people are trying to do, but have no plan of what they themselves want to do. It's nothing but adolescent contrarianism. They won't eat the dinner Mom cooked for them, but they have no Plan B other than to starve, so no one wants to follow their lead.

Dutchy wrote:

BN747 wrote:

In America, until we level up to think better of our political system as certain Europeans do, multi-party would be a nighmare and not make them any smarter.

BN747

So it is not the multi-party system that is bad, but the American voter is to blame

Absolutely!

And given this pool of players, keep it simple - two. Left or Right. Until a better informed electorate emerges...which actually is happening.

An Informed voter from the 1900s up the 2000s was a rare find. Why?

Because the 'standard' of an informed voter was practically non-existent. One could be informed on a few matters at best because of very limited media coverage and exposure.

Today, everything is 'a click away' (sorry KLM) instant, research accessible, almost any subject can come under a deep dive by almost anyone. That was never an option in all human history.
Voters are catching on fast.

All Red (and white) Kansas jumped a blue none saw coming this past summer and years of fleecing by Brownback and company.
Mississippi, Brent Favre and Co. scamming the welfare system and stealing funds meant for the poor.

20, 30 40 years ago (and beyond) these exact same scams payed out on the public.

The public has gotten a lot smarter (thanks internet) and the those who insist on cling to ignorance (Marjorie Traitor Green, Boobert, Gaetz, Gosar, et al) ...that period will have an expiration date soon as well.

The American voter is moving in the right direction.


BN747

StarAC17 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

StarAC17 wrote:

Any GOP rep that goes for Jeffries will be primaried in 2024.

McCarthy has to step down from this and let the GOP reps figure this out.

Why? 85% voted for him in the conference. No one else comes close.

At some point the moderates will have to bail on the GOP candidate just so they can actually run on effective legislation. The moderates will be the ones in the most trouble should this issue continue longer.
About 20 of them are from districts Biden won in 2020.

It's still less than 50% of the house, dems the rules (pun intended). He has to get a majority.

Any moderate republican won't even get to the 2024 election, they will be primaried by a MAGA republican. Good for the democrats in the long term.

Is this really a bad thing though? The "Moderate Republicans" are generally in an area where they could lose 2024 just by this position right here of allowing McCarthy to pander to the worst elements of the GOP.

Probably time for Mccarthy to drop out.

Not sure if nominating someone is a good idea.

Let the MAGA crowd nominate someone.

Strike 12 ?

What about one of the Dems gets sneaky and nominate Liz Cheney ?

At this point, I’m just surprised the GOP hasn’t accused the Dems of vote rigging in the Speaker selection as a way to distract from their emberassing fiasco.

It was nice to see Gaetz, once again, simultaneously demonstrate that he thinks this is all a joke and doesn’t take it seriously while demonstrating obedience to Trump. Does he get a pat on the head every time he kisses the ring?

SanDiegoLover wrote:

I was a Republican until GW Bush ran. Ever since, I’ve voted D across the board. GW Bush was and is an idiot. What I’d love to see happen is a mainstream / center right figure get the speakership. One who could get 100 Democrats onboard and 125 Republicans onboard.

This is what a lot of us have been hoping for several years.

I think we should call them MAGAts...as in "maggots".

My favorite part of this so far was Lauren Boebert agreeing to vote for "Kevin" and then nominating and voting for Kevin Hern. The integrity and trustworthiness.

Anyway, how many votes ago was that and how many votes are we up to now?

wingman wrote:

And so it begins - all these Trump supporters that gleefully supported his candidacy and touted his magical leadership qualities to drain the swamp and return America to some flavor of past greatness..they now disavow anything of the sort as the country comes to grips with just how profoundly stupid and dangerous Trump as, and is, to this country. I've said it before - don't be surprised if we can't poll even 10% of Republicans five years from now who'd admit they voted for the man. Just like that, poof!, 62 million Trump voters will have vanished from the rolls saying things like this - "I don't vote, I never did..don't look at me, I think he was crazy". Yeah right.

It is indeed most amusing to watch the antics of it. On a different forum I'm noticing the exact same thing with long term brexiteers. Whilst they are insisting loudly that Brexit is going wonderfully, a good 70% of them now claim to have voted against it. Weird how these things change.

In this case here though, my favorite bit was the performative nastiness against Colonel Vindman. Aged very badly. Claiming that people would stop buying G7500s amd G650s if the orange man wasn't reelected comes a close second.

johns624 wrote:

I think we should call them MAGAts...as in "maggots".

I like just writing "maggots" -- I think people will know from context that this is a slur directed towards the MAGAs.

zkojq wrote:

It is indeed most amusing to watch the antics of it. On a different forum I'm noticing the exact same thing with long term brexiteers. Whilst they are insisting loudly that Brexit is going wonderfully, a good 70% of them now claim to have voted against it. Weird how these things change.

It's pretty clear the USS Trump is sinking. It's interesting to see who is already jumping off, and who is saying they're going to go down with the ship. Some clearly don't want to be declared to be cowards, but it's also clear the water is rising.

Why this talk of Liz Cheney? Have you guys accepted the GOP moving the goalpost so far that what was before considered borderline extreme right wing, and in any other country still is, now suddenly is some kind of golden middle ground?? That’s like letting Putin keep Crimea, or Hitler keep Poland. The only way out of this is the total destruction (through implotion) of the GOP. It might be a tough few years but It’ll surely be worth it to get USA to be a functioning nation for it’s citizens?

M564038 wrote:

Why this talk of Liz Cheney?

Simple, the MAGA group ran her out of Congress, it would be a total middle finger to them to have her as speaker.

At this point the GOP is a joke.

Avatar2go wrote:

The interesting thing now is what McCarthy gave up to win those votes. And what outsized role the Freedom Caucus will now play in the House. I suspect it's as much a win for the Caucus as for McCarthy.

I ran into this article, stating a 75B defense cut.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-06/mccarthy-s-emerging-speaker-deal-tees-up-75-billion-defense-cut

Avatar2go wrote:

The interesting thing now is what McCarthy gave up to win those votes. And what outsized role the Freedom Caucus will now play in the House. I suspect it's as much a win for the Caucus as for McCarthy.

It just shows what a pathetic excuse McCarthy is as a leader. He's basically sold his soul for the seat of speaker. I am sure he'll eventually get the prize, but with what he's given up to get it, wouldn't be shocked at all if he gets ousted at the very first opportunity. Meanwhile the Freedom Caucus continues their idiotic game. Am I alone in thinking Boebert is nothing but an attention whore who can't stand living outside the spotlight for more than 2 hours? I find her detestable.

ER757 wrote:

Am I alone in thinking Boebert is nothing but an attention whore who can't stand living outside the spotlight for more than 2 hours? I find her detestable.

I do as well. An element of politics has always been performative - kissing, babies, cutting ribbons, offering a tear at the right moment - but you could still count on politicians to have policy stances etc. and a focus on the 'public interest' - however they may define that ideologically.

Not so with this current crop - enabled by Trump they treat politics - and the act of being a politician - like a reality TV show. They are after likes, clicks, shock value, cheers from acolytes. They view politics as a form of entertainment and they get to be the star, making rounds on the super PAC circuit and getting friendly cheers for their ability to 'own the libs' - it isn't about achieving anything, it is being the loudest most obnoxious performer. The more crass, the more outrageous the better. It is about seeking validation and getting a reaction, versus actually standing for anything.

Boebert, MGT, Gaetz - they are all of this school.

Avatar2go wrote:

What a complete frigging circus, that there is a ceremony honoring the Capitol police and others for Jan 6, while the assholes who blamed them for the riot, at the same moment, are blackmailing the House, in an alternate form of insurrection.

You could not have a more obvious or blatant depiction of the contrary values in play. I'm a calm person but watching these things side by side, makes my blood boil.

It is pathetic that so many people that tried to destroy the country are still in DC. It will be highlighted spectacularly in the coming months as the DOJ hones in on the perpetrators of that attack.

skyservice_330 wrote:

[...] - it isn't about achieving anything, i[...]

In many ways for MAGA's it is about "unachieving".

Which again goes back to being against government in general . To me it often appears they would prefer a dog-eat-dog every person for themselves ideal for the citizens of the USA.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

skyservice_330 wrote:

[...] - it isn't about achieving anything, i[...]

In many ways for MAGA's it is about "unachieving".

Which again goes back to being against government in general . To me it often appears they would prefer a dog-eat-dog every person for themselves ideal for the citizens of the USA.

Tugg

Agreed and well put. It is easy to argue the shed is broken and the solution is to burn it down. But if you are going to insist on burning it down, you should have the courage and fortitude to at least have a view on what should replace it. This, few of them seem to have. Its easy just to be against something.

Not to digress, but it is not dissimilar to what happened with Roe v. Wade. The right screeched for years that it needed to be eliminated. Well, they finally got what they wanted - and now they look like a deer in headlights because the misery of the reality is being laid bare at their feet - forcing rape victims to carry a rapists child, or having women end up on the brink of death because a doctor refuses a medically necessary procedure. The dog finally caught the car but doesn't know what to do with it.

ER757 wrote:

Am I alone in thinking Boebert is nothing but an attention whore who can't stand living outside the spotlight for more than 2 hours? I find her detestable.

That describes pretty much all the maggots, starting from Trump onwards. Always looking to win the next news cycle. Nothing else matters.

skyservice_330 wrote:

Not so with this current crop - enabled by Trump they treat politics - and the act of being a politician - like a reality TV show. They are after likes, clicks, shock value, cheers from acolytes. They view politics as a form of entertainment and they get to be the star, making rounds on the super PAC circuit and getting friendly cheers for their ability to 'own the libs' - it isn't about achieving anything, it is being the loudest most obnoxious performer. The more crass, the more outrageous the better. It is about seeking validation and getting a reaction, versus actually standing for anything.

Boebert, MGT, Gaetz - they are all of this school.

Tugger wrote:

Which again goes back to being against government in general . To me it often appears they would prefer a dog-eat-dog every person for themselves ideal for the citizens of the USA.

Indeed. Their idea of the ideal world is to have to pack iron every time you leave the house, that's their idea of "freedom".

skyservice_330 wrote:

Not to digress, but it is not dissimilar to what happened with Roe v. Wade. The right screeched for years that it needed to be eliminated. Well, they finally got what they wanted - and now they look like a deer in headlights because the misery of the reality is being laid bare at their feet - forcing rape victims to carry a rapists child, or having women end up on the brink of death because a doctor refuses a medically necessary procedure. The dog finally caught the car but doesn't know what to do with it.

They don't care. They "pwned the libs" and now they're on to the next news cycle. They don't care that they leave a wake of chaos everywhere they go, but sooner or later it'll catch up with them, just like it did for Drumph.

jetwet1 wrote:

At this point the GOP is a joke.

I am thinking someone should nominate George Santos. He is the perfect example - thus "leader" - of what our once-Grand Old Party has become.

ER757 wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

The interesting thing now is what McCarthy gave up to win those votes. And what outsized role the Freedom Caucus will now play in the House. I suspect it's as much a win for the Caucus as for McCarthy.

It just shows what a pathetic excuse McCarthy is as a leader. He's basically sold his soul for the seat of speaker.

Umm he sold that when zipped down to Mar-a-lago for serious Trump Suckage from King Liar after J6/20.


What had left to bend over for the Taliban 20..rights to Benghazi 2.0 or Huntergate 1.0 and Gym Jordan running lose in the House like a banshee.
.


BN747

Revelation wrote:

And, no surprise, it turns out agents of chaos are really bad at organizing themselves. They know they want to mess up everything other people are trying to do, but have no plan of what they themselves want to do.

Best comment yet.

Expanding on an earlier post, these “agents of chaos” are too dumb to realize they are sabotaging themselves. By weakening McCarthy, or whoever ends up in the chair, they are strengthening the Democrats. By making the entire Republican Party look like a bunch of buffoons incapable of running a yard sale let alone a country they are losing voters by the tens of thousands every round of voting. By pissing off everybody even remotely moderate in their own caucus they are losing support for any legislation they plan to introduce.

So they think they won a victory by getting McCarthy to agree any one member can make a motion to vacate. Best they will accomplish is to slow things down for a few minutes while such motions are soundly defeated.

All they’re really accomplishing is to make themselves irrelevant.

Avatar2go wrote:

Here is an excellent analysis from the PBS NewsHour, from editors of the NYT and WaPo. They really nail the progression of the Republican party that has led us to this point. It's been many years in the making, with a steady decline in ethical & honest conduct.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i8p-PJ78RNg

They believe that aside from the nihilist agenda of the Freedom Caucus, who enjoy blowing things up, they are preparing to hold the nation hostage over the debt ceiling vote later this year. Since that is must-pass legislation, and they are now free to add amendments without committee approval, and to remove the Speaker if he disagrees, they will force changes that are not supported by either the Republicans or the Democrats. That is a scary prospect, that might actually succeed, if the alternative is a national default.

They also note that the decline in ethical standards, corresponds directly to a rise in political violence. Since Trump became President, death threats to Congress have risen ten fold. Over 10,000 threats in the last several years. That is truly stunning.

I am wondering when the "sane" Republicans will simply resign from the party and caucus with Democrats until 2024? The Republican majority is not that large.