I’m finding this mess interesting: the MAGAs vote and debate like a third party, which kinda gives us a House with no majority party which is something we usually don’t get to see in America. And we’re getting the deadlocks that come from a chamber that isn’t willing to form a coalition - or at least not a reliable one.
I just hope the next speaker candidate doesn’t try for the same Republican-MAGA coalition. Although I’m prepared to be disappointed. Do you think there’s any chance a Republican would offer to sideline the MAGAs to get support from Democrats?
Under this analysis the Democrats have a plurality. How does that tend to work out in governments with more than two parties?
deleted by creator
@hallettj @chloyster Until we stop using politics as a tool to punish each other, get used to more chaos and pain.
yes yes both sides of course, both sides
Yes yes, mustn’t criticize the lesser evil, mustn’t criticize.
@Zorque @chloyster @hallettj @downpunxx But is it? Why must we vote for evil in degrees every time? Why can’t we say “let’s look into these perceptions without having to agree with them wholesale?” Why are we killing and dying for ideas?
We’re more than just pawns on this socio/economic/political chessboard. But who am I to demand that things be any different. What am I even contributing?
@downpunxx @chloyster @hallettj You’re the one positing both sides. From my perspective you and your so called opponents work for the same master: HATRED. UTTER HATRED and ideological supremacy. WARFARE AGAINST SELF CREATED DEMONS FOR THE PURSUIT OF YOUR PEDESTALIZED IDEAS OF WHAT SHOULD BE. SOD OFF WITH YOUR BOTHSIDESISM DEFLECTION ON ANYONE TIRED OF THIS BS that facades as “caring for the people.”
Caring for the people? Sounds like woke radical leftist Marxist propaganda (actual shit I hear on a daily basis).
The Republican party could stop trying to hurt people at any moment. Hell, I’m in a red state and our last Republican governor wasn’t too bad. But it’s all just hate now. And anyone who opposes that hate gets more hate from people like you.
@Omegamanthethird I don’t hate people. I hate terrible ideas that encourage more harm to people. Like your statement get more hate from people like you. A stupid statement. It’s not hatred; it’s pushback. Have you considered demonstrating better ideas? Or pointing out terrible execution instead of character assassination as per the usual? Note that I’m not vilifying anyone, just pointing out moronic behavior we all like to default to due to LAZINESS. “you people” What a moronic thing to say. -_-
You’re on Beehaw. These type of comments aren’t acceptable here. Be(e) nice or take it elsewhere.
This is objectively false. One party deals entirely in culture warfare with no idea how to govern. The other at least tries to interface with real world problems.
All this “we” shit smacks entirely too much of cis het white middle class privelage
Removed by mod
It smacks of a belief that to pull through this, the majority of us need to figure out how to get along.
All this “we” shit smacks entirely too much of cis het white middle class privelage
Nah, it’s just the usual “both sides are bad” false equivalence bullshit.
Both sides are bad, but they are not equivalent, and we indeed shouldn’t flatten the landscape.
In the interest of being constructive, what do you propose is the best way to voice this opinion off-handedly?
“Both sides are terrible, but at least one doesn’t wanna kill me.”
Or similar. Just damn the Dems with faint praise.
I would add that it depends on context and what specifically the democrats and republicans are being compared on.
There is a subgroup of each party that really is effectively the same in that they are non-ideological and only want to maintain the status quo, putting up the appearance of being at odds while actually working together to protect the corporate money hose.
It’s this group that makes “both sides” so effective as rhetoric because, while Democrats do genuinely represent a direction with some glimmer of hope and they do have people who are genuinely concerned with improving government, it only takes a few instances of these “bipartisan” corporate middlemen to keep fueling the bothsides narrative.
deleted by creator
The Republican party can stop denying women the right to control their bodies, stop denying science, stop censoring history, and stop othering anyone but Christian Cis Het White people any time they feel like it.
But they won’t, because that’s their entire political identity. I ought to know; I was one of them for 20 some odd years.
@CylustheVirus No, that isn’t their entire history. I’m sorry you’ve been convinced by corporate and blasphemous malcontents within the economical and religious underbelly of the many American cults within.
Their history matters exactly zero compared to what they are doing now. Knowing that Republicans used to be the less shitty party but then it switched is academic.
Honestly, any Republican that tries to work with the Democrats at this point is going to get eaten alive. Even if it’s a “moderate” one. They have completely gone off the deep end.
Well, the far right faction of Republicans did already side with Dems to oust the speaker.
Bipartisanship is alive and well!
Which given the composition of the Senate and that whole executive branch thing this means they’ll never get anything done.
Exactly, the only way to govern in a multi party system is bipartisan. Most Republicans cannot put anything above the party line anymore.
deleted by creator
You know guys, you don’t have to actually outdo the UK for unhinged politics. I mean, our lot just won’t have that and things are bad enough here already.
Don’t… the comments by our (UK) minsters yesterday were appalling and very concerning…
Don’t what? Comment on the dire straits of both countries with an attempt at humour? Seems that part failed here.
I prefer Dems be honest and say they like chaos, if that’s really the motive.
I prefer that because they are effectively shutting down the government longer and potentially contributing to another chaos, which is the Ukraine aid.If they want to be trusted, do it without hiding behind an excuse.
Edit: I’m not blaming it on the Dems. I’m just saying they should not hide their motives if that’s what they are doing.
Edit 2: I stroke through the sentence that triggered you guys. Hopefully that would make my point clearer.
deleted by creator
That’s not my point. See the edit.
deleted by creator
That’s not my point. See the edit.
I see your point. It’s just kinda… Not true I think.
As I see it: They never wanted McCarthy anyway, he was too extreme for them from the beginning. They realized pretty soon that they would rather see him go then stay, since it would just be too difficult to get on board with his shenanigans. He was not being a Speaker of the House, the whole house, he was trying to be the lackey for the Republicans.
And using the shutdown as a way to pressure them was a republican thing. Not the Dems. The Dems just called their bluf. Which in the end… turned out to be just that.
In the end, republicans are doing this to themselves, they are (rather) quickly destroying the party from within. Fascinating to see.
Thinking about it more… It would have been an interesting tactic of the Dems to “cooperate” with some more level headed Republicans and sideline the Chaos Caucus from having anymore influence. It could have had major impact on the effectiveness of the house going forward.
As I understand it, they actually tried this. Sort of. But McCarthy was very ANTI-DEMS towards it. So they voted the way they did.
deleted by creator
I think that’s fair. My comment was a reaction to the opinion in the article that implied Dems enjoy the chaos for political advantage. As you probably understood, I don’t like it if that was really the case.
Agreed, that would not be beneficial to anyone really. Basically a “shitty move”.
Seems like Republicans really did not leave them any other option though.
Also: the reporting of the New York Times has really nose-dived in quality the last few years.
deleted by creator
That’s because I got basically the same reply multiple times. What am I supposed to do? Waste time paraphrasing the same text?
deleted by creator
Why should Democrats vote for a Republican for Speaker of the House?..
That’s not my point. See the edit.
The GOP sets itself on fire and you are trying to lay blame on the Dems?
That’s not my point. See the edit.
That did not clear anything up for me.
Alright, so I think we agree that
- what you complained was not my point (it’s written)
- you don’t understand my point
At this point, you’re replying to a text you don’t understand. Why do you do that?
An excellent question. At this point I have no idea why I should continue trying to engage with you on this discussion platform.
Good Day.
deleted by creator
That’s not my point.
deleted by creator
Hell, then don’t reply to a comment you don’t understand.
deleted by creator
I’m surprised Dems decided to join in ousting him instead of voting present and letting him stay. But I guess watching GOP flail in another month-long speaker election can only help contrast them.
Gaetz even had to speak from the Democrat side lol
It’s not a good look and they should have left him in. They are supposed to be the adults who do what’s best for the country, and instead of leaving a guy in place who has shown at least some inclination to break with the nut jobs and do what’s right, they are letting the entire chamber shut down until who knows when and some equivalent or worse republican is stood up in his place.
Sorry, I hard disagree. Democrats have nothing to gain by and no responsibility for gratuitously voting for McCarthy. Republicans claim they have the majority, and that is how they control the chamber. But in fact, they do not, because an even more extreme right-wing third party is operating in bad faith under the GOP banner.
So the GOP wants the benefits of chamber control (speakership) without the responsibilities (voting majority). To not hold them to a voting majority is to give them a windfall of power without the votes to justify it.
They would have effectively owned him and forced him to act as a proper Speaker and not a political Muppet.
I can only assume this was offered and McCarthy would rather go down in flames than serve on his knees.
They would have effectively owned him and forced him to act as a proper Speaker and not a political Muppet.
They have no reliable leverage, unfortunately. After this vote, Gaetz and his merry band of misfits may change their mind. Similarly, their only “leverage” would be McCarthy honoring whatever agreement they came to prior to the vote.
Which, as history shows, is a tenuous proposition at best.
The Dems have TRIED being the adults, and it hasn’t worked; it’s only gotten the country to where it is now. Might as well sabotage the party and let them wallow in their misery for another couple weeks.
Lol. As an adult myself, I have yet to give up even though my kids have been acting like children for years now. You’re not actually that responsible if it’s only in small bursts when you feel like it.
That’s… not a very good analogy. You chose to have kids. None of them chose to have evil/idiocy incarnate for coworkers.
You absolutely choose to be a member of the House of Representatives and the Democratic Party. Way more so than most parents choose to have kids. It can be shockingly easy to have a kid, but it’s a bit of A Thing to be elected to the House.
Democrats didn’t vote to vacate because they like to watch chaos. They simply will not support McCarthy unless he offers something in return. Their vote is a bargaining chip and they aren’t throwing it away.
Especially after he backtracked on the compromise with Biden and then loudly announced he would not concede anything to Dems. The guy went to Home Depot and bought the rope himself. Like, it wasn’t going to end well for him either way, but it isn’t sad. He constructed this situation, he shouldn’t be surprised it blew up in his face.
I’m not gonna lie, I didn’t expect the vote to succeed. This is surprising, shocking, and even a bit sad. Not for McCarthy, but more for the country. That this is where we’ve gotten to.
McCarthy needed Dem votes to maintain a hold on the speakership, but the concessions he would have needed to make in order to get them would have meant making himself incredibly vulnerable to a career-ending primary challenge. The political incentives don’t line up.
After his shitshow of a speakership does he have any realistic chance of reelection? He looks pathetic and weak and will probably be defeated by a conspiracy blogger.
He’s already decided that he’s out of the speakership entirely, meaning that getting the speakership will likely turn into another John Boehner-style Cold War where the most right side of the party gets exactly what they want and the more “moderate” side will get flushed again unless the “moderates” turn it into an actual civil war. Best case scenerio is that Dems get 5 votes and just make one of their own the speaker for the rest of the session.
I meant his chances of reelection to the House, not as speaker of it.
He dug that grave when he lied to the Democrats.
