House Republican Says Jim Jordan’s Tally Is ‘Gonna Be Going Backwards’ In Tomorrow’s Vote
You wouldn't expect Conservatives to actually move forward, would you?
This is true.
True regressives
We must move backward, not forward, downward, not backward, and constantly twirling, twirling towards fascism.
Or at this point be able to count either.
Or stop defending rapists
"There’s a coordinated effort among the 55 Republicans who opposed Jordan in an internal conference meeting last week to build on their votes of opposition to ensure that he loses more votes each round, according to three Republicans familiar with the plan. In other words, he loses more votes with each round he holds.”
~ WAPO
Even in the GOP, assholes sometimes get what they have coming
The Cult of Reagan may be at an all-time low, but they still have the numbers to thwart the Cult of Trump in the house. And they still have total control of the R side of the senate.
My bet is still nine votes before we get a new speaker. At the end of the day, they're all just haggling about price. McCarthy knew that, so he agreed to whatever price in order to win. Now they all know that part of the price is also betrayal. With a party that's been purging everyone who isn't loyal, they don't know how to handle that.
I think it will keep going until the more moderate ones reach across the aisle to the democrats. They'll have to completely cut off any power the extreme right has.
That's kind of like all it would take is for Putin to leave Ukraine for the war to end. Sure it could happen at any time, but that's not the reality we're living in.
I didn't say it's likely to happen anytime soon.
Third time’s the charm! Or some multiple of three. I want to see if we can get to 21 failed votes and have the winner declared via the Blackjack Rule.
Hannity's staff has been sending emails to Republican Congressmen trying to sway their votes. What a douche.
How utterly silly. Imagine the delusion to set a deadline for answers from people who don't work for you and owe you no response other than a form letter.
Speaking of delusions, what's with this talk of "wide open borders"? I don't dip my head into the conservative new bubble enough to know what they're talking about. Did Biden bulldoze Trump's glorious wall that definitely got built?
Actually, he's building more, only because it's already earmarked for the wall, and he couldn't get the funds re appropriated. About the open borders thing. It's been one of their claims for years. Get ready, it's almost time for the every four year immigrant caravan to approach the border. Better vote conservative, or they'll tek ur jerbs!
Exactly. They keep throwing around the term "crisis at the border" as if there's some new impending catastrophe that only voting Republican will solve.
I just wish more people pushed back and said "What do you mean a wide open border? Didn't your guy just fix that? Oh he didn't? Then why would you want to elect him again?"
It's an implicit threat. It's clear that if they don't give him an answer that satisfies him, and the only such answer is that they will support Gym, then he will turn all the MAGA voters against them.
🤡
HONK
How are they not embarrassed?
Plenty of them claim to be when interviewed by the media, but it doesn't seem to make a difference.
They don't care, they know people know they're full of shit. BUT, their people are too dumb to realize they're full of shit so they eat it up. That's all they care about.
They're just looking for their next scapegoat here. I actually wouldn't be too sad if it's Gym. He's been around long enough.
they're still doing this bullshit? can't they vote on something useful?
They literally can't until they successfully vote for a new Speaker. Our entire system of government relies on the elected officials doing their job and constituents holding them to that.
But there's an entire party with talking points that the government in general just doesn't work for 50 years, so now we're at the point where people that grew up hearing that all the time, and being elected based on that theory, have to not do their job to prove it true.
The issue is that with a FPTP voting system where it inevitably results in two major parties, just a handful of politicians can grind everything to a halt. This was inevitable and easily predicted, but the GOP has a knack for not only ignoring but actively trying to insist reality isn't happening so they let it get to the point where a handful of MAGATS can hold the entire country hostage.
This isn't necessarily the fault of FPTP. If anything, proper parliaments are generally even more unstable, since a governing coalition involves a lot more distinct interests cooperating. The last Israeli government, for instance, collapsed after a single member abandoned the coalition. You also have situations where one of the coalition parties withdraws.
The primary difference between Congress and parliaments is at what point the coalitions form. In modern parliaments, many different ideological groups all run their own independent elections to gain seats in parliament, and then complex negotiations occur to form a majority coalition that establishes the government and opposition groups. In Congress, that coalition building happens before elections ever occur. You still have a bunch of distinct ideological groups, but they've already sorted themselves into two broad coalitions, the Democrats and the Republicans. That's why each party has a lot more ideological diversity within it than European parties.
What's been so interesting about this is that it's essentially Congress devolving into a parliament, which is fun for political nerds and for people who enjoy watching Republicans suffer.
It always frustrates me when people project assumptions from more parliamentary systems onto the US. They assume that Democrats and Republicans are uniform, when many smaller factions exist. Those smaller groups can grow in number and power, influencing the party line. Neoliberalism has become less of a norm in the Democratic party while limited social democracy gains ground. Fascism dominates the Republican party as neoconservatives lost ground.
The president usually rules for the party, bending their stated opinions to fit the party line. Bush Sr. called Reagan's fiscal policy "voodoo economics," but still tried to stick with what worked for Reagan when elected. Their actual views shine through more when they have too make tougher decisions where the party consensus isn't strong enough. Trump was unique in how he molded Republicans to fit his image, but even he followed the party line when they resisted his more outrageous ideas.
I don't like the two party system, but it's not as damning as people would think. I hate the ways corruption has been legalized, but even countries with stricter laws get ruled by shady interests. Better systems help, but they're not foolproof.
No, they can't.
They're the General Obstruction Party
Their entire purpose is to keep the government from doing anything usefulNot without a speaker. The speaker is the one that brings things to the floor to be voted on. That's why it has never happened before. Everyone understood the extreme consequences of not having a speaker.
They actually can't. Afair they literally aren't allowed to vote on anything substantive until they have a speaker. Of course, that suits most of the GOP just fine.
That's not necessarily true, but is the premise they're currently operating under.
The truth is, it isn't actually spelled out exactly what powers the interim speaker has
Yeah, as per the last update, he can preside over appointment of a real speaker, he can send everyone on vacation and he immediately appointed himself emperor of offices
*Gym Jordan
I think he deserves multiple insulting nicknames. I've been calling him Jimuary 6th.
Love ta see it!
They're starting to realize the true cost of trump… orange man isn't red or blue, he's green, and in pursuit of more green, he offered political support for sale, and they bought it.
Some bought it for their religion. Some bought it for conservative values. Some bought it just to poke the blue team in the eye.
Without the shuckster selling them his snake oil, they're realizing they've become somewhat distinct entities who aren't really allies the way they think they are.
Jim Jordan wants the gavel for the sake of religion. As time goes on, and the "red team" discusses more and more, his support will wane among the more libertarian minded types that want conservative laws that favor liberty over all else (the ones that are arguably "racists"), and the only votes he'll keep are the religious types, and the ones like desantis and abbott that pretty much just want a blue team loss at any price.
I think they're completely fucked, which is why most are still entertaining trump as a best option, despite the absolute ridiculousness of that.
Vote third party if you don't like Biden :)
Vote Biden if you don’t like Biden, because it’s a fucking binary system.
Vote anyone else in the primaries. It's only binary at the last step.
Except no quality candidate is opposing Biden in the Democratic primary next year
Yes, but voting alternatives with no hope shows dissatisfaction in primaries. In the election proper, it shows a lack of understanding of consequences.
I'll take the down votes, but Biden has been a pretty good president, all things considered. He doesn't get even close to the credit he deserves. Far from perfect, like every president. But he's been a pleasant surprise and has accomplished quite a lot in his one term. The hate for him is largely unwarranted.
At this point, I consider myself a one issue voter: Biden's not actively trying to overthrow our democracy, so he's got my vote.
That's perfectly acceptable and I do not disagree. In 2020 I voted for Biden for the same reason. But in 2024, I am going to vote for Biden not just because the other guy is a far-right authoritarian but also because I think Biden is actually good at the job. I mean, I wish he wasn't middle school buddies with Jesus of Nazareth himself and he definitely can be more progressive, but he is the most progressive president we have had so far. That's just something we are forced to accept in 2024.
Jim Jordan wants the gavel because he thinks he can brute force democrats into what he wants. He daydreams about big cuts and “anti-woke” bills and the atta-boys he thinks he’ll get as a result from trump.
All these chest pounders on the right truly believe the things they want don’t happen because “someone simply isn’t brave enough to stand up for it.” That’s what makes them dangerous. “Old guard” republicans chest pound to fire up the vote then cause some havoc but nothing like we’re seeing now.
Honestly I think Jordan just likes to smell his own farts (metaphorically speaking).
He doesn't care about policy, and is 100% comfortable (and perhaps prefers) being a minority party; that way nobody expects any actual work to be done while he and his allies lob turds at Democrats and grift the base.
Probably true too
There’s a reason why republicans donate to the Green Party candidates. That’s how we got Bush (and Trump, tbh).
On the flip side, we got Clinton because of Ross Perot.
Do you know what didn’t happen? The major parties didn’t look at their third party rivals and decide they needed to change their policies. Protest votes do not work.
In 2012 I voted for Jill Stein. Jill fucking Stein may be the literal worst presidential candidate I’ve ever voted for. I mean, worse people have run. KKK grand wizard David Duke ran. Donald Trump ran. But Stein is definitely the worst, most idiotic person I voted for. I did it because Obama was going to win my state, no questions asked. If I were in a purple or even a red state, I’d never have voted for her. I just wanted to send a signal about Obama’s policies being too far to the right. Obviously, that did not work.
Hell, it doesn’t work even when they lose the election with vote splitting. All of the party post-mortem analyses say that they lost because they needed to be more centrist.
That’s how we got Bush
wrong. the supreme court put W in, not voters.
we got Clinton because of Ross Perot.
wrong. an analysis found perot actually hurt clinton's margin of victory
You officially stated for the record that Obama wasn't the best option for you… that's how democracy is supposed to work… you voted correctly, ostensibly…
I understand you didn't think "pie in the sky" was the best option, but for the sake of argument, you operated the system of democracy in the correct manner by voting your "best fit" (with some liberties taken on context, with no malicious intent).
Every loss kind of actually is a failure to pursue centrism/moderation. The alternating between Dems and repubs isn't caused by people changing their ethos or core values every 4 years, it's caused by a rather small portion of the population that is centrist/moderate, and flip flops to try and knee jerk everything towards the center (and a portion who vote against the incumbent party because they don't like the status quo, which is different, but arguably very similar)
I don't believe that third party votes determine outcomes, and the very specific reason is because of the electoral college. Third parties did pull a large number of third party electoral votes, but even with all of them, Clinton still would have lost. Third parties "stealing" elections is simply not the reality (but the trump/Clinton race woke some bitches up… I was part of that and I'm pretty happy about it).
The "your vote did nothing" opinion you have about your Jill stein vote is the reality of fptp, everywhere. Even swing states (maybe more so if they're an "all in" state).
We think of America as being split by a fine line, but I don't buy that shit. I think there's a whole hell of a lot of people who would prefer a nice fat grey area, and I'm gonna hang out in that gray area no matter how thin it gets in the hopes that sensible people will join me.
JoJo was a better option than trump or Biden. Perot was. Paul was. The bern was. Colin Powell was (dude was pretty army though…). Id go as far as even Jill stein was. There's no shame in checking the block on that as far as I'm concerned, and I'm gonna continue to hope that more people will start thinking critically and voting for their best fit instead of what they think they need to settle for. It's your vote, that's supposed to be the whole point of democracy, your voice, not a collective compromise of voices.
I'll probably be voting RFK, and if you think about it objectively, If Biden wasn't incumbent from having had trump lower the bar enough for Biden to step over it easily, Dems would be running RFK on their ticket next year, because he's the best fit for the office (and for us, the people)out of the current pool (as near as I can tell so far anyway… could change, I'm gonna Google the hell out of all the runners and I won't be focused on their campaign webpages…). I'm not voting for "not this" or "not that", I'm voting to say what I think is the best idea… I don't give a shit how anyone spins that, and technically, that spin is illegal ;)
Under no circumstance would the dems be running RFK if Biden wasn't in the picture. RFK has never been anybody within the party and Democratic voters don't like him that much, to say nothing of his discredited beliefs that are pulling more conservative voters to his campaign than liberal ones.
But we should look at why conservative voters are responding so well to him.
