Nanker Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 Not enough votes to win the seat. If Boehner doesn't stay on, we might not be able to have a vote on extending the borrowing limit. It would be against the rules. No Speaker, no vote. IIRC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 Not enough votes to win the seat. If Boehner doesn't stay on, we might not be able to have a vote on extending the borrowing limit. It would be against the rules. No Speaker, no vote. IIRC. wow. big win for the teabaggers and the American public....not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 wow. big win for the teabaggers and the American public....not It's an indictment of government spending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 It's an indictment of government spending. Correct and government spending to him is a big win for the American public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 It's an indictment of government spending. Sweet - maybe you can point me to the TP - Freedom Coalition detailed proposal on how to lower spending Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Not enough votes to win the seat. If Boehner doesn't stay on, we might not be able to have a vote on extending the borrowing limit. It would be against the rules. No Speaker, no vote. IIRC. Would this be a purposeful move, or just simply bad timing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 9, 2015 Author Share Posted October 9, 2015 GOP Pressures Reluctant Ryan. 7 Republicans Who Could Be Speakers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 these 36 nutjobs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Caucus are deciding who can and can't be speaker. does anyone really see this as a good thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 9, 2015 Author Share Posted October 9, 2015 The Conservatiive wing of the GOP has put paid first to Eric Cantor, and now to Boehner. What’s left of the GOP establishment is saying that the insurgency is stupid. But if the GOP establishment had done its job, there wouldn’t be an insurgency. So who’s stupid here? As Ed Morrissey notes: “In 2010 and again in 2014, Republicans won back control of Capitol Hill by promising not just to stop Barack Obama’s agenda but reversing it, even though simple majority control in Congress isn’t sufficient to do so while Obama remains president. The GOP overpromised and under delivered–a classic set-up for discouragement and backlash.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 (edited) these 36 nutjobs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Caucus are deciding who can and can't be speaker. does anyone really see this as a good thing? and these two nutjobs decided what would and would not be brought up for votes for over four years. does anyone really see that as a good thing? Edited October 9, 2015 by Nanker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 these 36 nutjobs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Caucus are deciding who can and can't be speaker. does anyone really see this as a good thing? They're no worse than your nutjobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 9, 2015 Author Share Posted October 9, 2015 MIKE NEEDHAM: The Heritage Action CEO explains, “The reality that drove McCarthy’s exit from the Speaker’s race.” The reality is simple: In the aftermath of the 2011 showdown over the debt ceiling—the showdown that led to the spending caps that Boehner, et al. are now attempting to bust—the GOP began taking a passive posture toward President Obama and a dismissive disposition toward conservatives. That dynamic within the House Republican Conference has been building over the past four years. It came close to boiling over in January, and finally became too much in September. Of course, Americans outside of Washington played an undeniably important role in this process. The revival of the conservative grassroots empowered by access to information and a proliferation of technology created an atmosphere that forced Boehner to resign. And in a nod to political reality, McCarthy said “I don’t want to make voting for speaker a tough one…” Indeed it would have been, because as Boehner’s second in command, McCarthy would have been viewed in a similarly unfavorable light. To be clear, the solution to overcoming that divide is not some moderate caretaker or an absurd coalition-style government with Nancy Pelosi. . . . The Republican Party has fallen into the same trap—refusing to recognize or address its serious internal problems. This is an action-forcing event, and every single Republican needs to recognize it as such. Exactly. Is the GOP establishment listening yet? Somehow, I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 9, 2015 Author Share Posted October 9, 2015 Amazing. Democracy is happening...Representatives are listening to constituents, and beltway media FREAKS OUT The people melting down are the ones who are nervous about losing access. WE THE PEOPLE are excited. The dysfunction of the House is caused directly by the denial of its historic power to initiate appropriations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Amazing. Democracy is happening...Representatives are listening to constituents, and beltway media FREAKS OUT The people melting down are the ones who are nervous about losing access. WE THE PEOPLE are excited. The dysfunction of the House is caused directly by the denial of its historic power to initiate appropriations. really? the people support gun control overwhelmingly. these guys aren't listening to that. it's called selective hearing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 really? the people support gun control overwhelmingly. Link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 really? the people support gun control overwhelmingly. these guys aren't listening to that. it's called selective hearing. Ok I've had it! Please, please, please. Until you can explain what the !@#$ you mean by "gun control" stop saying it. So you're saying people overwhelming support something they can't even articulate. Yeah that's about par for the average American. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 9, 2015 Author Share Posted October 9, 2015 Good news Chef, Just heard Banfield on CNN use term "gun safety laws" rather than "gun Control laws" keep eye on them, likely change wording to promote passage of more laws. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Good news Chef, Just heard Banfield on CNN use term "gun safety laws" rather than "gun Control laws" keep eye on them, likely change wording to promote passage of more laws. . Well that is even !@#$ing stupider. Guns ARE safe!!! :wallbash: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 really? the people support gun control overwhelmingly. these guys aren't listening to that. it's called selective hearing.That's a absolute falsehood. With that said, it would require a Constitutional Amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Good news Chef, Just heard Banfield on CNN use term "gun safety laws" rather than "gun Control laws" keep eye on them, likely change wording to promote passage of more laws. . I beg to differ. That wording isn't intended to promote passage of more laws It's meant to cover for the gun related Executive Orders that will be a part of the massive Executive Order dump coming between mid November 2016 to mid January 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts