856
Sounds like they could easily solve this problem by making Hakeem Jeffries speaker.
Honestly, it could be a real power move for some blue state republicans to flip parties. If they could pull a Reagan and say that the Republican Party has changed but they haven’t, they could take both the democratic voters and centrist republicans while losing the MAGAs, and still carry their district.
That would be something for the history books.
I doubt they would be trusted at this point. Too many burnt bridges in the MAGA lifetime. They are on life support.
They don't even have to flip outright to Democrats, they could simply announce they are now Independent. They are probably getting a Primary challenger regardless, and maybe Democrats pay back the favor by forgetting to run a candidate in that district.
load more comments
(3 replies)
I think you mean HAAAKEEEEM JEEFFFRIEEES
I hadn't heard that. That's fantastic. It reminds me of Barack Obama's announcement in his Epic Rap Battle of History
Sweet summer child. The reference to Leeroy Jenkins is right in the description.
load more comments
(2 replies)
In my opinion there's no chance of that happening. The next speaker will definitely be a republican.
I'm just saying, it's an easy solution. Only takes a few Republican votes.
McCarthy was kicked out for working with Democrats to prevent the government shutdown.
You're grossly underestimating the RINO / propaganda that causes Republicans to knife each other in the back and demand loyalty.
Surely their long term best interests is to kick the MAGA caucus out of the party, but I guess we're just driving full steam into fascism instesd
load more comments
(3 replies)
It is pretty cool though to see more Republicans stand up to Jim Jordan though, especially when that news came out about the threatening text messages some Republican Rep's wives got about their spouses vote. I would love to see more Republicans break off and pick somebody else other than Jordan. He is the absolute fucking worst and he's a maga Republican 100%. I mean if you're looking for somebody who looks strong to Republicans, Jim Jordan is not the choice. He looks like a whiny, sniveling bitch.
But sadly, I absolutely expect them all to fall in line behind Jordan after several pointless rounds of votes. Because they're all cowards.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
Jordan's loss is also a historic first
Jordan’s 199 votes mark the first time since 1923 that the majority nominee got less than 200 votes.
- Ha ha
Exactly 100 years, impressive
Why stop at breaking that record? Let's keep going.
Another fun record, tallying up all the votes he’s received during McCarthy‘s 15 rounds and the most recent votes, Hakeem Jeffries now has accumulated the most lifetime votes for speaker in history.
Important points:
- Yesterday, Jordan received 200 of the necessary 217 votes.
- Today, Jordan received 199 of the necessary 217 votes.
- Some of the people who didn't vote for Jordan yesterday voted for him today; some of the people who voted for Jordan yesterday didn't vote for him today.
- Ha ha
That last point is the most important
Some of the people who didn't vote for Jordan yesterday voted for him today; some of the people who voted for Jordan yesterday didn't vote for him today.
That's amazing.
I have to say. I never understood why the grandmother in "Mars Attacks" laughed so hard when they "Blew up Congress".
Now I do.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Traitor, pervert, sex offender
Enough about Trump.
You're going to have to be more specific. That sadly doesn't narrow it down much.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
Eat shit, Gym Jordan!
What a silly clown show. I sure hope the Democrats can retake the House; the cons are not fit to lead a popsicle stand.
I am hopeful that this will hasten the breakaway of the far right from the republican party into a completely new 3rd party. It seems like this would only help dems.
load more comments
(1 replies)
At this point the only way out of this is for independents to not vote for Republicans but vote for Democrats instead.
At the moment there are no independent representatives in the House. We have two vacancies, but it's one Democrat and one Republican.
If you mean in the long run, at the next election, sure; but we can't wait that long for this mess to be sorted out.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Thank you, Rep. Gaetz, for the opportunity to see the GOP in a lose-lose situation.
The circus continues 🤡
It's absurd that we require a majority vote for house speaker. It should be as simple as whoever gets the most votes. Or you have to vote for A or B for your vote to even be counted. None of this "present" nonsense.
212 vs 199, ok Hakeem Jeffries wins.
Plurality voting is one of the best systems if your goal is to elect someone that most people don't want.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Most likely, this would make the Republicans vote for whoever their candidate is, rather than a minority Democrat winner.
Not saying I disagree with you per se. I had the same thought when reading this news.
The current system was probably designed to promote compromise, even across party lines. But we all know how well that's working out these days.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Kek. The US Republican can't stop shooting itself in the foot, even as its Israeli ally is crying for help. If I am Netanyahu, I'll get new allies.
Gymbo is a winner in the meme game. His pissed off face in the first loss will be used for a meme template for the next decade.
What a piss baby. Just like Greg Abbott
load more comments
(4 replies)
That Trump endorsement sure is powerful.
What a fucking pedofilic treasonous loser.
Maybe his campaign should ramp up the threatening texts to his cohorts.
Please drop out, Jordan. You don't belong anywhere near the levers of power.
He went from 200 the first round to 199 the second.
Give it up Gym. The Democrats have the high ground.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
856 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19097 readers
3919 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS