Democrats should support moderate Republican speaker of the House

[Aristides]

8 minutes ago, myata said:

As I said, the responsibility to deal with the lying mob is the Republican's and nobody else's. Of course, they can deal with it in a number of ways: gather will and resolve and isolate the minority of chaos; embrace it and become one with it; take an honest decision and disassociate with insanity, having done all in their power to prevent it. Very hard to argue that.

But in the meanwhile, the country is expecting the government to run and to work. Understand (try to) it's not about what and how you feel, there are other interests too. You don't have to bend over backwards. You don't have to give "everything they want". But you can show goodwill and preparedness to compromise if it is possible. I don't believe most people expect anything less from their representatives.

How do we know there hasn't been cross the floor talks but who actually represents the Republicans? Who do the Democrats compromise with? There is no point making deals when you have no idea if they will be respected.

[myata]

5 minutes ago, Aristides said:

How do we know there hasn't been cross the floor talks

Working together is now called that? Ohoh.

[CdnFox]

29 minutes ago, myata said:

As I said, the responsibility to deal with the lying mob is the Republican's and nobody else's.

Sorry - simply not true.  But feel free to cry about it if it makes you feel better. Because you can!  What?

[Aristides]

11 minutes ago, myata said:

Working together is now called that? Ohoh.

That is how it used to be but scorched earth partisanship at the expense of governing destroyed it. Republicans control the House, Democrats can only respond to whatever is put before them. They don't control the agenda.

[myata]

Republicans should not have nominated someone who voted against certification of the election without any evidence. This is a failure of responsibility, no way around that. Maybe if he admitted that he was wrong, publicly?

Or maybe, it's all predetermined. Anyways, this time around nobody could claim that they couldn't know who Trump and his mob are. One doesn't have to embrace insanity: it's a choice, not inevitability.

[myata]

So to round it all up: the Dems with a little bit of help from the extreme mob voted out McCarthy to shut the House down for weeks at the time of extraordinary international developments and quite possibly, end up with a more radicalized GOP caucus and Trump's loyalist as the speaker.

In what world does it make any sense? If this isn't a prime example of a dumb zero-sum partisanship game what is? Do you know who the folks will support after a month or two of government chaos? What makes you certain you'll gain from it and not the other way around? No clue. I hope someone has, here.

[myata]

19 hours ago, Aristides said:

It is both their jobs. No opposition  will give a majority party a carte blanche to do whatever it wants, nor should it.

18 hours ago, Hodad said:

Republicans are reaching and stretching further and further right to earn the support of the 11 fringe members of their own party

 

19 hours ago, Aristides said:

It isn't anyones responsibility to look after someone else's spoiled child.

Gee people, we were talking here all this time, and it looks like was for nothing. McCarty vote count: 208 democrats voted to remove the speaker.

Do you understand the difference between "responsibility to look after" and "throwing a rock"? Is "not supporting" and "voting against" the same thing? A five year old would know the difference. Is there an automatic obligation to vote down anything that comes from the other side? What would the founding fathers answer? I'm not impressed. Looks like you're just as ready to mislead and pretend for your own good cause, just as "them" for their. And that's just too bad. For the country.

Why is it hanged on Matt Gaetz? He only gave Dems an opportunity to bring down the House. Voting "to remove Speaker" (208 votes) was a conscious and deliberate act. What was the thought? And what was the objective? How can one not see the obvious connection between the act and the outcome? Beyond me.

As I see it, " House Democrats helped by a handful of marginal Republicans voted to oust the Speaker and throw the House into uncertainty" would be a correct summary of the event. No need to hide it with many words without much substance.

Will the next one be better, for the country? (yes, you forgot). Will the chaos that follows work in your favor or like the last time? Will the gamble pay off or lead to a catastrophe (for the country)? You'll have to figure it out as you started it and its on your hands.

Looks like both parties are entrenched in their partisan agendas and all but forgot about the responsibility to the citizens and the country. If there's any other way to see this, based on facts and objectively, do let me know.

Edited October 13, 2023 by myata

[Rebound]

11 hours ago, myata said:

So to round it all up: the Dems with a little bit of help from the extreme mob voted out McCarthy to shut the House down for weeks at the time of extraordinary international developments and quite possibly, end up with a more radicalized GOP caucus and Trump's loyalist as the speaker.

In what world does it make any sense? If this isn't a prime example of a dumb zero-sum partisanship game what is? Do you know who the folks will support after a month or two of government chaos? What makes you certain you'll gain from it and not the other way around? No clue. I hope someone has, here.

The mainstream House GOP has a choice: Compromise with the extreme right, or compromise with the Democrats.  Kevin McCarthy could have reached out to the Democrats, but he did not.  He can still go back to them with a proposal, and if they accept, maybe he’ll be back in.  His choice. 

[myata]

No, you don't seem to understand the connection between the act and the outcome. It's called "responsibility". You voted the Speaker out, 208 of you joined by eight marginal Republicans (an interesting alliance, by the way). Now, who is responsible for the House being in a limbo? Doesn't look good, no. And most importantly why did you need to mislead? We brought the House down because we hoped that it would reflect bad on the other party but maybe (what if) not, on the government, and on the democracy as a whole?

A five year old could see that. Half of the people of the country too, my estimate. Maybe the gamble would work. Or it will backfire, like the last time.

This is a prime example that partisanship went way too far and there aren't good ones and smart ones here. Binary politics is a path to the downfall of democracy.

[Rebound]

16 minutes ago, myata said:

No, you don't seem to understand the connection between the act and the outcome. It's called "responsibility". You voted the Speaker out, 208 of you joined by eight marginal Republicans (an interesting alliance, by the way). Now, who is responsible for the House being in a limbo? Doesn't look good, no. And most importantly why did you need to mislead? We brought the House down because we hoped that it would reflect bad on the other party but maybe (what if) not, on the government, and on the democracy as a whole?

A five year old could see that. Half of the people of the country too, my estimate. Maybe the gamble would work. Or it will backfire, like the last time.

This is a prime example that partisanship went way too far and there aren't good ones and smart ones here. Binary politics is a path to the downfall of democracy.

Let’s go back to the thread title: Democrats should support a Moderate Republican.  Tell me, who is that? Not McCarthy, or Scalise, or Jordan, that’s for sure. 
 

What you’ve been saying so far is “It’s the Democrats fault because they are refusing to vote with conservative MAGA Republicans.” And my answer to you is, “No Shlt, Sherlock.” The GOP can shift to the right or shift to the center. Their choice.  They don’t get to have everything they want; they must choose one compromise or the other.  

[myata]

2 minutes ago, Rebound said:

“It’s the Democrats fault because they are refusing to vote with conservative MAGA Republicans.”

No, this is not that I said. And I already commented on the similarities between the partisan left and the right. They are both given to the zero sum game, and struggle with common notions of responsibility, objectivity and truth. Look here:

- the House was working, somehow, anyhow

- I did something, consciously and deliberately, and as a result, it's not working any longer.

Who is responsible? Do you understand? If you just stood aside and it stopped working you could point fingers. But this is not what happen. So obviously, and your convincing yourself that it was all their fault will do nothing to change the objective picture.

So it was you who brought the House down. OK. Then you did it for a reason, with some thinking? What was the reason? What were you thinking? You could get a better Speaker in no time and the country wouldn't need to notice? Please. You couldn't be that irresponsible and d-mb to do that only to stick it to "them"? Or could you? I have doubts now.

13 minutes ago, Rebound said:

They don’t get to have everything they want; they must choose one compromise or the other.  

Or you nuke the House, just like they did before? What does it make of you? Are you that different then? Objectively speaking?

[Rebound]

7 minutes ago, myata said:

No, this is not that I said. And I already commented on the similarities between the partisan left and the right. They are both given to the zero sum game, and struggle with common notions of responsibility, objectivity and truth. Look here:

- the House was working, somehow, anyhow

- I did something, consciously and deliberately, and as a result, it's not working any longer.

Who is responsible? Do you understand? If you just stood aside and it stopped working you could point fingers. But this is not what happen. So obviously, and your convincing yourself that it was all their fault will do nothing to change the objective picture.

So it was you who brought the House down. OK. Then you did it for a reason, with some thinking? What was the reason? What were you thinking? You could get a better Speaker in no time and the country wouldn't need to notice? Please. You couldn't be that irresponsible and d-mb to do that only to stick it to "them"? Or could you? I have doubts now.

Or you nuke the House, just like they did before? What does it make of you? Are you that different then? Objectively speaking?

So the Democrats must all vote strictly Republican from now on? Because that is what you’re saying whether you realize it or not. 
 

Who is the moderate Republican that the Democrats should support? Tell us please. 

[Aristides]

It is up to the Republicans to come up with a moderate candidate the Democrats can support, not the other way around. Unless you think the Republicans would be OK with the Democrats choosing the speaker. 

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, myata said:

No, this is not that I said. And I already commented on the similarities between the partisan left and the right. They are both given to the zero sum game, and struggle with common notions of responsibility, objectivity and truth. Look here:

- the House was working, somehow, anyhow

- I did something, consciously and deliberately, and as a result, it's not working any longer.

Who is responsible? Do you understand? If you just stood aside and it stopped working you could point fingers. But this is not what happen. So obviously, and your convincing yourself that it was all their fault will do nothing to change the objective picture.

So it was you who brought the House down. OK. Then you did it for a reason, with some thinking? What was the reason? What were you thinking? You could get a better Speaker in no time and the country wouldn't need to notice? Please. You couldn't be that irresponsible and d-mb to do that only to stick it to "them"? Or could you? I have doubts now.

Or you nuke the House, just like they did before? What does it make of you? Are you that different then? Objectively speaking?

WTF are you talking about? Matt Gaetz made the motion to remove the Speaker and Matt Gaetz voted to remove him. Did a Democrat do this? 
Has any Republican ever voted for a Democratic Speaker of the House?  
 

The Democrats are willing to compromise. The Republicans are not.  Surely they don’t need to offer much compromise to get 20+ Democrat votes. 

[myata]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

So the Democrats must all vote strictly Republican from now on? Because that is what you’re saying whether you realize it or not. 

Wth? You don't understand simple words, all of a sudden? There's no difference between "I won't participate" and "I'll bring it down", same thing to you?

OK, if that's what you have to say. One has to read it as either you're lacking the intelligence to see the difference here; or you're just as ready to stretch and mislead as your supposedly hellish opponents. And neither is great, for the country. That's bad.

13 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Matt Gaetz made the motion to remove the Speaker and Matt Gaetz voted to remove him. Did a Democrat do this? 

I posted the facts, see it. Two hundred and eight Democrats voted to remove the Speaker. Voting is a conscious and deliberate act. This is a fact. You often accuse your opponents that they wouldn't admit to the facts. Can you? Are you different, really?

[Rebound]

7 minutes ago, myata said:

Wth? You don't understand simple words, all of a sudden? There's no difference between "I won't participate" and "I'll bring it down", same thing to you?

OK, if that's what you have to say. One has to read it as either you're lacking the intelligence to see the difference here; or you're just as ready to stretch and mislead as your supposedly hellish opponents. And neither is great, for the country. That's bad.

I posted the facts, see it. Two hundred and eight Democrats voted to remove the Speaker. Voting is a conscious and deliberate act. This is a fact. You often accuse your opponents that they wouldn't admit to the facts. Can you? Are you different, really?

It’s not the job of Democrats to choose the opposition leader. This has been House tradition for 200+ years.  
 

A Republican leader is certainly welcome to reach out to gain Democratic support, and should. 

[myata]

Seriously, what should it take to admit a fact?

 

[Rebound]

Just now, myata said:

Seriously, what should it take to admit a fact?

 

Name the MODERATE Republican who the Democrats should support. It’s not Kevin McCarthy or Jim Jordan.

[myata]

No, they don't understand. Couldn't? Wouldn't? Ohoh.

[Aristides]

39 minutes ago, myata said:

Seriously, what should it take to admit a fact?

 

Why would they support someone who was owned by the crazy caucus.

[Hodad]

4 hours ago, myata said:

 

Gee people, we were talking here all this time, and it looks like was for nothing. McCarty vote count: 208 democrats voted to remove the speaker.

Do you understand the difference between "responsibility to look after" and "throwing a rock"? Is "not supporting" and "voting against" the same thing? A five year old would know the difference. Is there an automatic obligation to vote down anything that comes from the other side? What would the founding fathers answer? I'm not impressed. Looks like you're just as ready to mislead and pretend for your own good cause, just as "them" for their. And that's just too bad. For the country.

Why is it hanged on Matt Gaetz? He only gave Dems an opportunity to bring down the House. Voting "to remove Speaker" (208 votes) was a conscious and deliberate act. What was the thought? And what was the objective? How can one not see the obvious connection between the act and the outcome? Beyond me.

As I see it, " House Democrats helped by a handful of marginal Republicans voted to oust the Speaker and throw the House into uncertainty" would be a correct summary of the event. No need to hide it with many words without much substance.

Will the next one be better, for the country? (yes, you forgot). Will the chaos that follows work in your favor or like the last time? Will the gamble pay off or lead to a catastrophe (for the country)? You'll have to figure it out as you started it and its on your hands.

Looks like both parties are entrenched in their partisan agendas and all but forgot about the responsibility to the citizens and the country. If there's any other way to see this, based on facts and objectively, do let me know.

McCarthy is not a moderate or an eager collaborator. Why should they endorse his leadership with a "yes" vote? What did he do to earn their votes?

If you strip away all the nuance and gamesmanship, the next Republican speaker has two choices. He can move his party to the extreme of the intractable chaos caucus-- where they don't really want to be--or they can work with the Democrats to get things done.

That's it. That's the bottom line. Republicans -- and particularly Speaker candidates--are in the drivers seat. They can resolve this situation at any time. They just have to decide which direction to turn.

[myata]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Why would they support someone who was owned by the crazy caucus.

Look we were just talking about the lying mob tactics. But what is this? Where, in what world, "not supporting" means "blow up"? Seriously I'm beginning to doubt, is it the same thing in the context of intelligence, reason and responsibility?

4 minutes ago, Hodad said:

McCarthy is not a moderate or an eager collaborator. Why should they endorse his leadership with a "yes" vote? What did he do to earn their votes?

And here's another one. Refraining from "endorsing" has to mean "blowing the House up" and nothing less. Oh my. Difficult case.

Edited October 13, 2023 by myata

[myata]

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

Matt Gaetz made the motion to remove the Speaker and Matt Gaetz voted to remove him. Did a Democrat do this? 

OK, to round it up: Matt Gaetz can always count on you to blow the House up whenever he wants it. Easy, and factual too. Now, who was supposed to influence whom, in this wise strategy?

[Rebound]

39 minutes ago, myata said:

OK, to round it up: Matt Gaetz can always count on you to blow the House up whenever he wants it. Easy, and factual too. Now, who was supposed to influence whom, in this wise strategy?

Let me restate this: It’s the fault of 20 Republicans that Hakeem Jeffries isn’t Speaker of the House.  

[myata]

So Jordan is the frontrunner now. You dumped McCarthy and will get Jordan, an open Trump loyalist - or a long period of chaos in the House right at the time when multiple crises are developing. Who gained? Who is it - and you, by the way working for? Doesn't take much to figure out, really. Congrats, you're doing it again. No enemy will accomplish what stupidity does. Easily.

19 minutes ago, Rebound said:

It’s the fault of 20 Republicans that Hakeem Jeffries isn’t Speaker of the House.  

Keep talking to yourself in a dreamland. It's known to solve many problems.