Speaker of the House

[mspart]

1. As has been reported, it will only take a single congressperson, acting in what is known as a Jeffersonian Motion, to move to remove the Speaker if he or she goes back on their word or policy agenda. 
2. A “Church” style committee will be convened to look into the weaponization of the FBI and other government organizations (presumably the CIA, the subject of the original Church Committee) against the American people.
3. Term limits will be put up for a vote.
4. Bills presented to Congress will be single subject, not omnibus with all the attendant earmarks, and there will be a 72-hour minimum period to read them.
5. The Texas Border Plan will be put before Congress. From The Hill: “The four-pronged plan aims to ‘Complete Physical Border Infrastructure,’ ‘Fix Border Enforcement Policies,’ ‘Enforce our Laws in the Interior’ and ‘Target Cartels & Criminal Organizations.’”
6. COVID mandates will be ended as will all funding for them, including so-called “emergency funding.”
7. Budget bills would stop the endless increases in the debt ceiling and hold the Senate accountable for the same.

1.  For for this one, as I understand it, it is not limited to the party in power, but to every House member.   I don't think this is viable hence my comment on D's using this at least once a week.   If it is limited to the Rs for this Congress, I still don't like it as it will be very disruptive. 

2.  I think this is a great idea as there is at least half the country that believes the FBI has been weaponized against conservatives and their ideology. 

3.  This may happen but is moot as discussed.

4.  Single subject bills is good.   A Defense bill should not be including stuff for DHS, National Parks, Aunt Trudy's favorite cause etc.   Single subject like defense, or HHS, or what have you.   72 hours to read them is quite reasonable and requires a minimum of planning and administration.  The omnibus bill is something no one could read in 72 hours and it had all kinds of subjects.   My understanding is that if an amendment comes up that is off topic, it is summarily rejected as out of order. This is all good.

5.   The border is porous, the admin is not following the law and allowing millions to enter and with them millions in drugs coming across the border.   Something needs to happen to close the border.  

6.  Again, I'm not sure about this one.   I am not a Covid hawk and want all kinds of money for it.  But there are some folks still hurting from the economic paralysis that occurred due to it.  I am not a covid denier, I have it.   It wasn't fun.   But there was entirely too much money piled into this.   Something needs to be looked at rationally here but I don't think that comes with a stop all funding idea.

7.  Continuing to spend more and borrow more really needs to stop.    There is trillions of dollars of debt and with interest rates rising, more and more of the budget will be to service that debt.  That is a zero sum game.   We should not be spending more than we bring in and each year we bring in a record amount of cash to the Treasury.  

These are my reasons for generally supporting these "concessions".   Please provide a point by point reasoning why these concessions are not good. 

mspart

[Crotalus]

1 hour ago, mspart said:

1. As has been reported, it will only take a single congressperson, acting in what is known as a Jeffersonian Motion, to move to remove the Speaker if he or she goes back on their word or policy agenda. 

1.  For for this one, as I understand it, it is not limited to the party in power, but to every House member.   I don't think this is viable hence my comment on D's using this at least once a week.   If it is limited to the Rs for this Congress, I still don't like it as it will be very disruptive. 

What would be the point of democrats doing that? I'm not saying it wouldn't happen, but the republicans made fools of themselves this past week and there would be no benefit to the democrats to join in. It would just make them look bad and accomplish nothing as anything the house passes can get blocked by the senate, anyways. The republican holdouts wanted it to continue their power trip and keep McCarthy's balls (if he has any) in a vice. There's no such benefit for democrats in this scenario.  

[mspart]

It would take time away from the "important" business of the House and make the R's look like they can't control anything.   One D could say I want a vote, and all Ds will vote against the Speaker, they only need 5 R's do the same and then the speaker is no more.  Good for the Ds if they don't want to play those games. 

mspart

[Mike Parrish]

1. It is limited to the Rs only. It's a loaded gun in the hands of an angry circus chimp.

2. They'll make big noises and milk it for campaign contributions but nothing will change.

3. Moot. Agreed.

4. Recipe for chaos as each rep holds each section of the budget hostage. This will be the single largest impediment to getting a budget through in several decades.

5. This is in congress' lap. If they want things done differently, then they need to pass legislation to change things. It will never happen as too many businesses rely on migrant labor. P.S. The War on Drugs never worked. At all.

6. XBB1.5 is going to be a real barnburner. Put a pin in this post. China is a real time 1.7B person gain-of-function experiment, We should be gearing up to protect people from these next variants, which may be substantially worse.

7. Under which party's presidents was made the debt larger? Care to guess?

 

[Mike Parrish]

The Chaos Caucus is coming in a full of piss and vinegar, but the rest of the republicans don't want most of what the CC wants.

That's before any legislation gets to the Senate or the President's desk.

I predict lots of performance art and very, very little actual legislative work getting done.

[Jason Bryant]

 

 

[mspart]

Jason,

That's pretty funny.   Thanks for adding that to the mix here.

mspart

[mspart]

1 hour ago, Mike Parrish said:

1. It is limited to the Rs only. It's a loaded gun in the hands of an angry circus chimp.

2. They'll make big noises and milk it for campaign contributions but nothing will change.

3. Moot. Agreed.

4. Recipe for chaos as each rep holds each section of the budget hostage. This will be the single largest impediment to getting a budget through in several decades.

5. This is in congress' lap. If they want things done differently, then they need to pass legislation to change things. It will never happen as too many businesses rely on migrant labor. P.S. The War on Drugs never worked. At all.

6. XBB1.5 is going to be a real barnburner. Put a pin in this post. China is a real time 1.7B person gain-of-function experiment, We should be gearing up to protect people from these next variants, which may be substantially worse.

7. Under which party's presidents was made the debt larger? Care to guess?
 

Interesting.  

1.  I have read that both Ds and Rs can ignite a vote of no confidence.  So I don't think you are correct there.  

2.  This may come to nothing, but you did not answer but that is not why you are against it.  Are you philosophically against investigating FBI, or just think there is nothing there?

3.  Agreed!!

4.  There have not been many budgets passed over the several decades you refer to.   So no real issue there that I see.  They should have as many spending bills as there are departments in the administration, then maybe one for the Judiciary and Legislative branches.   No more sneaking in things via amendment that have nothing to do with that US Dept. 

5.  Yes it is in Congress' lap and that's why it is in the concessions.  Well the "not war on drugs" certainly isn't working as more people than ever are dying due to drug overdose.

6.  Will not argue this point.   Like I said, I really am on the fence.  Depends where the funds go to.

7.  This is a tired old argument that will get nowhere.   But you are not, apparently, for a budget that is more real with income and spending.  Or you would have said so rather than bring up debt from different admins.  I think it is good policy to only spend what comes in.  Call me crazy but you and I need to do it, our States need to do it, our National govt should do it too.

Thanks for your thoughts,

mspart

[mspart]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/motion-vacate-key-sticking-point-gop-speaker-battle/story?id=96241364

This article explains how the vote of no confidence is initiated, by either R or D.

mspart

[Plasmodium]

21 hours ago, mspart said:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/motion-vacate-key-sticking-point-gop-speaker-battle/story?id=96241364

This article explains how the vote of no confidence is initiated, by either R or D.

mspart

I don't see where that article states Democrats can initiate a motion to vacate. 

[mspart]

2 hours ago, Plasmodium said:

I don't see where that article states Democrats can initiate a motion to vacate. 

I read this in the article:

What about Democrats?

Clearly Democrats are loathe to throw McCarthy a lifeline in his bid to become speaker, but it's not clear how they would handle an effort to remove the gavel from his hands.

If Democrats did vote to remove the speaker, that would give McCarthy a cushion of four votes. He would be removed if five or more Republicans voted with all Democrats.

I assumed that this meant they one of their corps could object to the speaker and a vote would be had.   On second reading, it appears to just be talking about a general vote, not the one person instigating it.   I'll see if I can find clarification. 

mspart

[mspart]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/speaker-of-the-house-ousted-motion-to-vacate-rcna64902

How a speaker of the House can be ousted with a 'motion to vacate'

Speaker Kevin McCarthy made concessions to the far-right to get his job, including changing the rules to allow any member of Congress to force a vote to remove him.

 

Jan. 10, 2023, 11:20 AM PST

By Kyle Stewart

WASHINGTON — In his bid to become speaker of the House, Rep. Kevin McCarthy agreed to a number of concessions to secure the support of Republicans who originally opposed him. One was a rule change to allow just a single member to try to force him from office.

Under the new House rules passed Monday, only one member of Congress — Democrat or Republican — is needed to bring a "motion to vacate," which forces a vote on removing the speaker. That would need only a simple majority of the House to pass to oust McCarthy.

This spells it out in very clear language. 

mspart

 

[TitleIX is ripe for reform]

New article on Jim Jordan's wrestling his way to power:

https://dnyuz.com/2023/04/16/how-jim-jordan-a-fighter-aligned-with-trump-wrestled-his-way-to-power/

[mspart]

Anyone with any power has done similar things.   Not sure what the beef is with that.   Was anyone expecting he would not take this on with the same zeal that won him a National Championship?

mspart

[GreatWhiteNorth]

10 hours ago, mspart said:

Anyone with any power has done similar things.   Not sure what the beef is with that.   Was anyone expecting he would not take this on with the same zeal that won him a National Championship?

mspart

The beef may be something like this part of the article:

"Now Mr. Jordan, 59, is using his perch on the judiciary panel to defend his most important political patron, Mr. Trump, and to attack his adversaries."

I would agree that other politicians have also showed similar scummy behavior. (That part is nothing new.)

To take on scummy behavior with the same "zeal" as Jordan is doing. That only makes it more disturbing.

As good a wrestler as Jordan was, and as much as his family has been involved in supported our sport - what he's doing now is misguided and wrong-headed. It's time to vacate the position of guard dog for Trump - Trump won't need one when he's wearing an orange jumpsuit.

And, regardless of how it all turns out, it's time to grow past that 'guard dog' role. It's a pathetic role not suitable for anyone but a halfwit. 

[Plasmodium]

This guy is 59.  He has been a student, a highly, highly discredited part-time wrestling coach and a politician. Full stop.

[mspart]

11 hours ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

The beef may be something like this part of the article:

"Now Mr. Jordan, 59, is using his perch on the judiciary panel to defend his most important political patron, Mr. Trump, and to attack his adversaries."

I would agree that other politicians have also showed similar scummy behavior. (That part is nothing new.)

To take on scummy behavior with the same "zeal" as Jordan is doing. That only makes it more disturbing.

As good a wrestler as Jordan was, and as much as his family has been involved in supported our sport - what he's doing now is misguided and wrong-headed. It's time to vacate the position of guard dog for Trump - Trump won't need one when he's wearing an orange jumpsuit.

And, regardless of how it all turns out, it's time to grow past that 'guard dog' role. It's a pathetic role not suitable for anyone but a halfwit. 

How different is this than Adam Schiff, having been proven wrong about the Russia connection, still abiding by his statements that Trump was and is a Russian stooge.   And he'll supply the goods on all of that at some future time.   His dishonesty is astounding.   That's why is no longer on the House Intelligence Committee. 

Again, I don't see the beef.   Ds do it and Rs do it.  

mspart

[GreatWhiteNorth]

7 hours ago, mspart said:

How different is this than Adam Schiff, having been proven wrong about the Russia connection, still abiding by his statements that Trump was and is a Russian stooge.   And he'll supply the goods on all of that at some future time.   His dishonesty is astounding.   That's why is no longer on the House Intelligence Committee. 

Again, I don't see the beef.   Ds do it and Rs do it.  

mspart

That's the "whatbout'ism" again.

• I'm saying Jordan is playing the role of Trump guard dog like some halfwit stooge.
• You come back with the "what about Schiff?" as if Schiff's transgressions somehow excuse Jordan's.
• This is the kind of logic we hear on schoolyards at elementary schools across the country (and on Fox news.)
• We could both easily name a dozen politicians who are halfwits - it will never make Jordan acting like one OK.

[headshuck]

Kinda like every problem the current administration has is always the fault of the previous administration.

[BobDole]

11 hours ago, headshuck said:

Kinda like every problem the current administration has is always the fault of the previous administration.

And every "victory" is only due to the current administration.

[mspart]

19 hours ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

That's the "whatbout'ism" again.

• I'm saying Jordan is playing the role of Trump guard dog like some halfwit stooge.
• You come back with the "what about Schiff?" as if Schiff's transgressions somehow excuse Jordan's.
• This is the kind of logic we hear on schoolyards at elementary schools across the country (and on Fox news.)
• We could both easily name a dozen politicians who are halfwits - it will never make Jordan acting like one OK.

No, what you are saying is Jordan is doing something wrong.   What Schiff has done is demonstrably wrong yet you don't care about that.   You only care about Jordan.   If doing something wrong was really the issue, then you call out Schiff as well.   The fact that you want to dismiss his conduct shows you are partisan on this, pure and simple. 

It is called being intellectually honest.   Calling out Jordan for his behavior because you don't like his politics while ignoring someone else's similar pecadillos because you do like their politics is the definition of intellectual dishonesty/hypocrisy. 

We've had these discussions on these boards before.   Hillary was bad.   No she wasn't.   She was not prosecuted so she did nothing wrong.  And on and on. 

This is standard among political discussion today.  Am I wrong?  

mspart

[GreatWhiteNorth]

6 hours ago, mspart said:

No, what you are saying is Jordan is doing something wrong.   What Schiff has done is demonstrably wrong yet you don't care about that.   You only care about Jordan.   If doing something wrong was really the issue, then you call out Schiff as well.   The fact that you want to dismiss his conduct shows you are partisan on this, pure and simple. 

It is called being intellectually honest.   Calling out Jordan for his behavior because you don't like his politics while ignoring someone else's similar pecadillos because you do like their politics is the definition of intellectual dishonesty/hypocrisy. 

We've had these discussions on these boards before.   Hillary was bad.   No she wasn't.   She was not prosecuted so she did nothing wrong.  And on and on. 

This is standard among political discussion today.  Am I wrong?  

mspart

In this case, you are wrong because I'm not in a political discussion about D vs R... at all.  I wouldn't dream of excusing bad behavior because of a political party affiliation (something you should consider.) I'm a middle of the roader - I see all politicians as basically equally crooked until I'm proven otherwise.

I'm calling out Jordan because he is actively involved in obstructing a criminal investigation for no reason other than his political ambitions as Trump's attack dog. A role that I believe should be beneath him. I trust the judicial system (at least well as any system of any country on the planet), and I think Trump will eventually get what he deserves. If that's nothing, or if it's something - either way is fine with me. I'd like to see the chips fall where they may without Jordan inserting himself into the situation - funded by my taxpayer money.

We can both list many politicians who have engaged in sketchy behavior. Both D's and R's. But I'm not - I'm just pointing out the one politician in the current high-profile case.

 

(If it makes you feel any better, I have posted recently about Ilhan Omar and my dislike for a number of things she's been doing - and not doing. And how we need to see her replaced ASAP. I don't think she belongs in Congress, we need someone else. But that's not part of my current discussion - nor should it have to be.)

 

 

[mspart]

Even now you are saying you want to just concentrate on one thing at a time.   I gave you an example of something that should make you just as mad (Schiff), and you dismiss that.   That tells me that this is not about what is right or wrong to you, this is about you hate Trump and anyone allied with him and want him in jail more than anything else in the world.     

Do I think Jordan should stop?   No I don't.   I believe this is a political/justice hit job on Trump.  You have the NYC DA that routinely lets felons off the hook, takes felonies and makes them misdemeanors so that the punishment is not so hard on the perp.   But, because he hates Trump, and campaigned on getting him, he is taking a situation that at most would be a misdemeanor and turning it into a felony case.    Does that not mean anything to you?  

Jordan is going on about how the Justice Department has been politicized and this, although not a justice dept thing, is the same thing.   In this case, it seems you are willing to allow the country to go down the banana republic road because payback will be coming at some future time.  This is not a road we should be going down.   But it seems inevitable at this point. 

That said, I think it is just best to recognize we see this differently and agree to disagree on this matter. 

mspart

[GreatWhiteNorth]

12 hours ago, mspart said:

Even now you are saying you want to just concentrate on one thing at a time.   I gave you an example of something that should make you just as mad (Schiff), and you dismiss that.   That tells me that this is not about what is right or wrong to you, this is about you hate Trump and anyone allied with him and want him in jail more than anything else in the world.     

Do I think Jordan should stop?   No I don't.   I believe this is a political/justice hit job on Trump.  You have the NYC DA that routinely lets felons off the hook, takes felonies and makes them misdemeanors so that the punishment is not so hard on the perp.   But, because he hates Trump, and campaigned on getting him, he is taking a situation that at most would be a misdemeanor and turning it into a felony case.    Does that not mean anything to you?  

Jordan is going on about how the Justice Department has been politicized and this, although not a justice dept thing, is the same thing.   In this case, it seems you are willing to allow the country to go down the banana republic road because payback will be coming at some future time.  This is not a road we should be going down.   But it seems inevitable at this point. 

That said, I think it is just best to recognize we see this differently and agree to disagree on this matter. 

mspart

I have no problem agreeing to disagree. Let's call it that and end it this conversation about Jordan.

BUT, generally speaking, the notion that I have to tackle EVERY politician's mistakes if I am to mention ONE is idiotic.

It's like saying I can't comment on how I think RBY stalls against Iowa without having to mention every wrestler on every other team who also stalls because otherwise it must be that I just hate RBY? Nah, that's just weak. Really weak.

You seem reasonable in past conversations, and I have nothing against you - but your logic here is SERIOUSLY flawed.

Best to you, Art - but I'm out.

[mspart]

Again, agree to disagree.    I feel if we are to be upset for person A for doing X, then we should be upset with person B for doing X also.  

Best to you GWN.   You have never stooped to name calling and have endeavored to have intelligent discussions and succeeded.   I appreciate that you are willing to discuss things here.    It is refreshing. 

mspart