#TraitorTrump trying to pull all strings. We’ll be safer when he’s in prison.
Trump is telling loyalists to kill new speaker candidate's prospects in the cradle: report https://www.rawstory.com/trump-2666036301/
Hey, pollsters out there! Do a poll of Republican-controlled districts in NY to see how Republican voters would feel about making a deal with Democrats.
A majority might be okay with it under the right circumstances.
#uspolitics #politics #uspol #USPolPolls #Speakerofthehouse #housespeaker #speaker #GOP #polls
But that's not really how the #House rules work: any representative doesn't have to make a deal to either vote or withhold their vote.
If Democrats really wanted the House to reopen they could simply stop voting to stand in the way. That doesn't require any dealmaking.
When you start talking about deals, though, that gets REALLY complicated since this is more than just the Speaker. There are committee assignments and House Rules on the table at that point, which is a giant Gordian Knot to address.
@DemocracyMattersALot
@dswidow @volkris @DemocracyMattersALot
No, 217 isn't a set threshold in the House rules. It's a simple majority.
It's 217 if everyone is there to vote.
There was talk of democrats being able to vote present, to lower the threshold.
@chiclet @volkris @DemocracyMattersALot
Ah, thanks for the explanation.
Well, I can see Dems doing that if the Speaker nominated is not a vile nutjob like Jim Jordan. And regardless, there's no point in Dems helping fill the Speaker position if they don't get a promise of a funded government, and funding for Ukraine and Israel.
The rule is that it's a majority of people who have voted for any particular candidate.
So any representative is welcome to either vote present or not vote at all. It's up to them.
But part of the deal is whether you like any particular candidate or not, are you willing to keep the democratic process seized? Are you willing to keep the House shut down, the congress unable to pass or even debate legislation because you don't like the particular person serving as Speaker?
That's a pretty extreme position to take, but it is the position that the Democrats have taken at this point.
As far as I'm concerned all of these politicians are assholes, but we keep re-electing them. So whatever.
Let's just be clear that the assholes we are electing are shutting down Congress.
@volkris @chiclet @DemocracyMattersALot
If Dems voted for Jim Jordan, it seems likely that he would have refused to fund the government unless he was able to make all sorts of changes that were just wrong. Also would refuse funds for Ukraine.
Not all politicians are the same. People like Jim Jordan, Marjorie, Gaetz, etc. are nuts and dangerous. Republicans in the House need to find a way to compromise with Dems and shut down the Crazy Eight.
@volkris @dswidow @DemocracyMattersALot
That's certainly the argument Reps are trying to make. That it's the Dems voting AGAINST their nominee for speaker, and holding up the House. I don't buy it.
It's the same BS argument that they make when they shutdown the government with poison pill amendments that they know won't pass, but will say Dems are blocking it.
The reality is that there is NO SUCH THING AS voting AGAINST a speaker candidate. They vote for a speaker.
And Dems have been voting for Jefferies.
Why are Republicans not voting for Jefferies? He's got more votes than any other.
@chiclet @volkris @DemocracyMattersALot
Right. So we just need enough Repubs to vote "present" to lower the threshold, then Dems can vote Jeffries in as Speaker with 212 votes!
@dswidow @volkris @DemocracyMattersALot
That would be unprecedented indeed.
There's only a true majority party if they act like it. Right now, the House appears to have 3 parties. The Dems don't have a majority, but they have plurality.
You're absolutely right in saying this goes both ways, that either party membership could vote for the other party.
But.
I would say there is a little bit of a difference in that the Democrats voted unanimously for this moment, as they allied with the Republican extremists to shut down the House.
That's significant to me, and it sort of breaks the symmetry between the two parties.
It's one thing to say that both parties should work with the other to get things going, but it's another to point out that only one party voted overwhelmingly to shut down while the other voted overwhelmingly to keep going.
@volkris @dswidow @DemocracyMattersALot
"the Democrats voted unanimously for this moment".
It was Geatz, a republican, who made the motion to vacate the speakership.
Back in January, Democrats also never voted for McCarthy. They voted unanimously for Jefferies.
They didn't "ally" with extremist republicans. Their votes were already known. Geatz knew that no Dem would vote for a Rep.
Unfortunately it's the same manipulative logic politicians use on the gullible masses,... to conflate and confuse the act of voting for your own party, with the concepts of alliance with the opposing party.
And yet none of that changes what I pointed out, that Democrats voted unanimously with the Republican extremists to shut down the House
You might think that's good! In which case, excellent!
But we need to recognize this fact when we go decide whether to re-elect our representatives are not.
If you are happy with your representative voting with the Republican extremists to shut down the House, great!
Or maybe your representative was one of the overwhelming majority of Republicans who said no, the House needs to continue legislating.
Either way, judge your own representative for the way they voted and keep that in mind when you decide whether to send them back into power.
Whether your representative backed the Republican extremists or not should be a pretty big factor when you decide whether to re-elect that representative.
@volkris @dswidow @DemocracyMattersALot
You keep saying "with". But that is a stretched interpretation of how voting actually works.
That's exactly the argument they are making to shift the blame away from what they've done. It happens every year. I'm just not that naive to believe the rhetoric.
It's the same BS argument that they make when they claim Democrats raise taxes... when they merely allow tax cuts that they never voted for, to expire at the time Republicans designed.
Same thing with the Afghanistan debacle. It was Trump's plan.
Any educated person who understands how Congress actually works,... understands that it's just a trick of words to imply something absolutely absurd.
Politicians are playing the American people, especially the gullible ones with this tactic.
Every year, the Republicans who want to shut down the government try to shift the blame with poison pills. They misinterpret the voting record exactly as you are doing right now. "See?, They didn't vote for our proposed funding bill (Even though we poisoned). They technically voted no, so technically shut down the government".
Sorry but this kind of political nonsense isn't going to fly with anyone with half a brain.
That's a lot of words but doesn't really make any particular case.
Extremist Republicans voted to shut down the House, and they would have been laughed out of the room except that Democrats actively supported their effort, empowering them to shut it down.
That's simply how the voting for this particular issue is set up and it is how it went down.
So yes, plenty of times you see voting results being spun, but this is a simple example, and in this example the Democrats voted with the Republican extremists, for better or worse.
@volkris @dswidow @DemocracyMattersALot
Well I guess you don't see that this is the same rhetoric and spin.
You acknowledged that it does happen, but you believe that not in this case.
I don't know what to say, but I guess they wouldn't try it if it didn't work on some people.
It's obviously not the same rhetoric and spin because it's an entirely different legislative process.
It's like you're saying folks don't see that these apples are actually oranges.
No, we don't see that this is the same, because factually it's not, and you are excusing politicians from accountability if you try to make those apples into oranges.
@volkris @dswidow @DemocracyMattersALot
Look at who's actually making the claims trying to blame Democrats. They are the ones responsible for shutting down the House.
Using your same argument, you are ALLIED with the Republican extremists.
The thing is, I don't have a vote in the House.
The Democratic caucus of representatives in the House do have votes, though, and they voted to shut it down.
Again, if you think that's a good thing, great! Either way your representatives need to be held accountable for how they voted.
@volkris @dswidow @DemocracyMattersALot
I never said you had a vote. I said by your logic, you are ALLIED with them.
Same nonsense argument of, "you're either with us or you're against us".
It's naive to think that they actually voted to shut down The House of Representatives, that's not in the text of the vote.
The vote for a new speaker took place right after.
Technically, they voted to recess for a few hours.
But again, you seem to be aligned with Matt Geatz, Jim Jordan and the rest of the extremists because you are arguing "for them". You are "with" them because you are making the same argument as them.
Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?
You are boxed into a corner. And some irrational people might actually believe that argument.
Seeing as my logic is based around the Democrats' votes for shut down, the fact that I don't have a vote myself does not mean that by my logic. I'm allied with them.
It's like you're missing the thing that I am really stressing here, the core element that this is how these Democratic representatives actually voted.
If you focus on anything other than actual votes then you are missing the point.
@volkris @dswidow @DemocracyMattersALot
"If you focus on anything other than actual votes then you are missing the point."
🫰 THAT, is exactly my point.
Focusing on the actual votes is exactly how they are able to manipulate people like you.
You're basically appealing for people to accept oversimplification.
It's a known political strategy. Force an up or down vote in order to twist and misinterpret the results. That's why I keep bringing up the poison pills, they do the exact same thing. Set up a situation where your opponents have to choose between two bad decisions.
Do you really think that Democrats voting to keep McCarthy, a Republican, would have been good for them? Do you think that people would really reward that?
Instead of fending off this ridiculous argument from Republicans, they would be attacked from their own party and it would be worse.
The vote to vacate was not the critical point. It was the motion to even call that vote that began this whole debacle. It was that motion, from extremist Republicans, that set up the no win votes later.
When you finally come to realize that you've been outsmarted and manipulated, by a very old tactic, you will likely have cognitive dissonance about it. But good luck.
What in the world?
Focusing on facts is how you're manipulated?
Well, I think we're done here.
@volkris @dswidow @DemocracyMattersALot
Every year, the Republicans who want to shut down the government try to shift the blame with poison pills. They misinterpret the voting record exactly as you are doing right now. "See?, They didn't vote for our proposed funding bill (Even though we poisoned). They technically voted no, so technically shut down the government".
Sorry but this kind of political nonsense isn't going to fly with anyone with half a brain.
The difference is that in this occasion the Democrats voted yes to the shutdown.
And it wasn't a poison pill sort of thing, it wasn't a complicated question on many different subjects with nuances or anything like that.
It was a simple question, do you want to declare the House to be without a speaker which shuts it down, and Republicans overwhelmingly voted no while Democrats unanimously voted yes, alongside the extremists.
There are absolutely cases where the voting record can be spun for rhetorical purposes, but this is not one of those cases.
Democratic representatives need to be held responsible for voting to shut down the House, whether that's giving them positive or negative regard.
Again, if your representative voted to shut down the legislature and you think that was a good thing, great! You think it's a bad thing, they should probably not be re-elected.
@volkris @chiclet @DemocracyMattersALot
I just don't get your logic. We don't want a maga wingnut as Speaker, full stop.
If some Republicans can be reasonable and agree to fund the government at already agreed upon levels, and put up a Speaker who has a clue, then I'm sure the Dems will vote for him.
Well, the logic is based on looking at what's already happened, looking at the way people have already voted.
200 Democrats voted to set the stage for a maga wingnut as Speaker with such intention that they were willing to shut down the entire legislative process to do it.
That doesn't sound like a group ready to negotiate to me.
It also sounds like you're buying into some false information about how the spinning levels are set in Congress. I've seen that going around too, and it's just not how Congress works.
@volkris @DemocracyMattersALot
Oh, that's weird. I thought it was a matter of getting 217 votes for one person. If Dems don't vote, Republicans still have to get to 217, don't they?
It seems like Dems and Reps could make a deal to vote for the Whip (Tom Emmer) for Speaker, with an agreement to fund the government at already agreed upon levels, plus provide funding for Israel and Ukraine. Leave everything else as it is.
#uspolitics #uspol #housespeaker #Speakerofthehouse #speaker