Democrats should support moderate Republican speaker of the House

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, myata said:

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?

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

McCarthy kissed Gaetz's ring to get the job. Why would the Democrats support him? 

For the life of me, I can't understand why you think Democrats should be responsible for the actions of Republicans. I'm sure  the Dems would support a moderate who isn't in the crazy caucuses pocket but that's the Republican's problem and the Dems can't solve it for them.

[myata]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

For the life of me, I can't understand why you think Democrats should be responsible for the actions of Republicans.

Yes. It looks to me that you can't understand that political system exists, or supposed to, not for the parties and politicians that play in it and run it but for the country and its citizens. This is the main source of your conundrum, imo.

[Hodad]

20 minutes ago, myata said:

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?

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

You seem to have this weird perspective that Democrats are supposed to cover for the Republican dysfunction by just handing them power (support) to do whatever they want. It's bizarre.

These are our representatives. We vote them into office to represent our interests. If we wanted to give Republicans power to enact Republican aims, we would all have voted for Republicans. 

If there isn't a solid enough majority to elect a speaker, the parties need to work together to do so. To compromise. THAT'S the obligation. In no reality is there an obligation for one (near) half of the legislative body to simply hand support to the other half. 

[robosmith]

4 minutes ago, Hodad said:

You seem to have this weird perspective that Democrats are supposed to cover for the Republican dysfunction by just handing them power (support) to do whatever they want. It's bizarre.

These are our representatives. We vote them into office to represent our interests. If we wanted to give Republicans power to enact Republican aims, we would all have voted for Republicans. 

If there isn't a solid enough majority to elect a speaker, the parties need to work together to do so. To compromise. THAT'S the obligation. In no reality is there an obligation for one (near) half of the legislative body to simply hand support to the other half. 

The frightening thing is, by not having a speaker, the crazy caucus will get the government shutdown they want and that's the only way they'll get the completely irresponsible spending cuts they want, at least for the short term.

Meanwhile they'll be fundraising off of those spending cuts and damaging the government and by extension Biden's presidency. Which is WHY Trump wants this dysfunction.

Edited October 13, 2023 by robosmith

[Aristides]

2 hours ago, myata said:

Yes. It looks to me that you can't understand that political system exists, or supposed to, not for the parties and politicians that play in it and run it but for the country and its citizens. This is the main source of your conundrum, imo.

Tell that to the Republicans and their crazy caucus, they are the ones trying to shut down the government.

[myata]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

You seem to have this weird perspective that Democrats are supposed to cover for the Republican dysfunction

Why couldn't you people talk straight and use clear, meaningful words? I've no idea what you mean by "cover". But it's you who toppled the Speaker and with it, the ability of the House to function that's a fact of this reality and there's not a grain of doubt who caused it and who is responsible.

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

The frightening thing is, by not having a speaker, the crazy caucus will get the government shutdown they want

Yeah right, we torpedoed the House but it was all the doggy's fault. Really frightening here is the seeming absence, vacuum of responsibility on both sides. That is frightening.

[myata]

4 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Tell that to the Republicans and their crazy caucus, they are the ones trying to shut down the government.

At some point you may be able to say that. If someone is deeply entrenched there may be no miracles, no ways to work with them constructively. But it takes more than words, way more than just saying it to show it and to prove it.

[Aristides]

1 minute ago, myata said:

Why couldn't you people talk straight and use clear, meaningful words? I've no idea what you mean by "cover". But it's you who toppled the Speaker and with it, the ability of the House to function that's a fact of this reality and there's not a grain of doubt who caused it and who is responsible.

Yeah right, we torpedoed the House but it was all the doggy's fault. Really frightening here is the seeming absence, vacuum of responsibility on both sides. That is frightening.

What is frightening is the Republicans letting their tail wag the dog. They are the ones who have to get their shit together.

[robosmith]

10 minutes ago, myata said:

Yeah right, we torpedoed the House but it was all the doggy's fault. Really frightening here is the seeming absence, vacuum of responsibility on both sides. That is frightening.

McCarthy never asked for Democrats support and did almost everything possible to dissuade it.

You don't get help by demeaning those who could help you and starting a sham impeachment inquiry.

Appeasement never works.

[Hodad]

7 minutes ago, myata said:

Why couldn't you people talk straight and use clear, meaningful words? I've no idea what you mean by "cover". But it's you who toppled the Speaker and with it, the ability of the House to function that's a fact of this reality and there's not a grain of doubt who caused it and who is responsible.

Yeah right, we torpedoed the House but it was all the doggy's fault. Really frightening here is the seeming absence, vacuum of responsibility on both sides. That is frightening.

I don't think there was anything unclear about those words. You want the Democrats to capitulate entirely--to not fight for the policies they promised their constituents to fight for--in order to solve the problem of Republican dysfunction. Which is a very strange reaction.

Again, if a Republican wants to earn Democrat votes, he or she needs to earn them. Did McCarthy do that? No. Will someone else? Maybe. 

Republicans are the majority. They have the votes to elect a speaker. They are being held hostage by extremists in their own party. They can either submit to the extremists, or they can earn support from the center. One way or another, they have to do something to get the votes. 

I know what I think they should do, but one way or another they have to make a choice. 

 

 

[Caswell Thomas]

Ok, who would make a good Speaker is the question on the floor....here.  Well, I would suggest it be someone not afraid to speak their mind, someone who actually listens can't votes the way the citizens who sent them to Congress want them to, people moderate enough to be willing too see both sides if the Aisle and try to work out good, equitable agreements to get the people a work done quickly and properly and someone who is strong enough to do the job.  Now obviously in a Republican controlled House, the Republicans will fix not vote a Republican in to replace Kevin McCarthy , so, in the interests if the Questioner Author of this topic I suggest either Ted Buds of North Carolina or Joni Ernst of Iowa. 

[myata]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

Again, if a Republican wants to earn Democrat votes, he or she needs to earn them. Did McCarthy do that? No. Will someone else? Maybe. 

Ohh I wouldn't talk more about the obvious difference between "supporting" and "not bringing down with all might"? Or maybe it's genuine, so in you personal life, whatever you don't happen to support you just destroy, bring down without a moments thought? Or only the politics?

So the previous speaker did bad things to Democrats. Sure there may be enough ground to conclude that he couldn't count on their support. But, judging objectively, is the current situation better, for them and for the country (and for the world)? Do you act for the better in the reality or like an automaton, or a spoiled child, without much reflection? If your act could not improve the situation (for the people) should you still proceed - or think a bit more?

[reason10]

On 10/11/2023 at 5:30 PM, myata said:

Jordan was Trump's all out favorite. Republicans did not support him by a very slim majority. Don't blow your chance to work together with mainstream part of GOP and isolate the populists. If you blow it, and the non-smart (sic) zero sum gamble backfires (as it did already), you will have only yourself to blame.

Jordan is a moderate. He is mainstream, and represents most of mainstream Americans.

Trump was a centrist and he represented the mainstream of Americans. That's why the DemoNazis have ass fugged the Constitution to prevent him from running again.

[myata]

48 minutes ago, reason10 said:

Trump was a centrist

It all is relative you know. "Centrists" (in the lying mob's definition) can call for elimination of elections, independent courts and justice system. And the "mainstream" (in the same frame of reference) would be OK with that. Now would America want that, for itself and its future?

[Rebound]

22 hours ago, myata said:

It all is relative you know. "Centrists" (in the lying mob's definition) can call for elimination of elections, independent courts and justice system. And the "mainstream" (in the same frame of reference) would be OK with that. Now would America want that, for itself and its future?

I saw an interview with Hakeem Jeffries this week, and he agrees with supporting a moderate Speaker.  He said it’s not his goal to poach 8-20 Republican votes to make himself Speaker, but the U.S. Senate has a power sharing arrangement because the balance is so close, and it functions, while the House does not.  

[myata]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

I saw an interview with Hakeem Jeffries this week, and he agrees with supporting a moderate Speaker.  He said it’s not his goal to poach 8-20 Republican votes to make himself Speaker

It takes more than words, and many politicians don't seem to get it. They came to believe that their role is to perform in the political circus as opposed to fulfilling the role and responsibility delegated by the citizens. The gap can be very wide.

Democrats could have shown it by stating clear principles of power sharing; and by refraining from toppling the House at the first opportunity presented ironically, by their arch-enemies. Great talking means very little when deeds show the contrary.

[Aristides]

18 minutes ago, myata said:

It takes more than words, and many politicians don't seem to get it. They came to believe that their role is to perform in the political circus as opposed to fulfilling the role and responsibility delegated by the citizens. The gap can be very wide.

Democrats could have shown it by stating clear principles of power sharing; and by refraining from toppling the House at the first opportunity presented ironically, by their arch-enemies. Great talking means very little when deeds show the contrary.

Democrats didn't move to remove their own speaker, Republicans did. It's up to Republicans to come up with a speaker the Democrats can support, not the other way around. 

If the Republicans do decide to support Jordan, do you think the Democrats should vote for him?

Edited October 15, 2023 by Aristides

[myata]

2 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Democrats didn't move to remove their own speaker, Republicans did.

Democrats have full responsibility for removing the speaker of the House. This is just a fact.

2 minutes ago, Aristides said:

If the Republicans do decide to support Jordan

And this is, the consequence. Obviously.

[Aristides]

3 hours ago, myata said:

Democrats have full responsibility for removing the speaker of the House. This is just a fact.

 

They had no responsibly. A Republican majority moved to remove their speaker and voted him out. 

Quote

And this is, the consequence. Obviously.

 

Yes or no.

[Aristides]

Why should Democrats unconditionally support a Republican speaker when Republicans aren't prepared to do so?

[Rebound]

4 hours ago, myata said:

It takes more than words, and many politicians don't seem to get it. They came to believe that their role is to perform in the political circus as opposed to fulfilling the role and responsibility delegated by the citizens. The gap can be very wide.

Democrats could have shown it by stating clear principles of power sharing; and by refraining from toppling the House at the first opportunity presented ironically, by their arch-enemies. Great talking means very little when deeds show the contrary.

Dude, for the hundredth time, Who is this moderate Republican? Stop blabbering and tell us. 

[myata]

Folks I'm chatting the mob converts in another thread and honestly, you don't look not much better here. Do you understand the difference between a) I do something to get a better result and b) I wash my hands, do nothing and stand aside and c) I blow up everything that doesn't go my way and see what happens.

Which one? Let's try again?

[Rebound]

2 minutes ago, myata said:

Folks I'm chatting the mob converts in another thread and honestly, you don't look not much better here. Do you understand the difference between a) I do something to get a better result and b) I wash my hands, do nothing and stand aside and c) I blow up everything that doesn't go my way and see what happens.

Which one? Let's try again?

How about c, pay attention to what others are saying?

The House GOP has not offered any type of power sharing compromises to the Democrats. In the Senate, that’s what the Democrats have done. There’s much more to getting things done than just electing a leader.  

Edited October 15, 2023 by Rebound

[myata]

4 minutes ago, Rebound said:

The House GOP has not offered any type of power sharing compromises

Maybe but did you have to blow it up, did it give you some rational reason to do that? You could try some intelligent approach, or stand by tell people what you think and let them make up their minds. Why blow up? What good did you get from it (and the country)?

[Caswell Thomas]

On 10/14/2023 at 8:02 AM, reason10 said:

Jordan is a moderate. He is mainstream, and represents most of mainstream Americans.

Trump was a centrist and he represented the mainstream of Americans. That's why the DemoNazis have ass fugged the Constitution to prevent him from running again.

Trump's idea of Mainstream America are the people who support him financially and ideologically, as soon as you stop giving him money or start thinking for yourself he disowns and denounces you. That's not a leader, its a dictator. The USA is led by a duly elected by the citizens President. There is no.place in America or its Constitution for a dictatorship.