1290
Well, We Have a Speaker. He’s an Election Denier and an Extreme Christian Fundamentalist.
(newrepublic.com)
this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2023
1290 points (98.1% liked)
politics
18898 readers
3251 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.
- 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.
- 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This next election is going to be an absolute shitshow. I guarantee they'll refuse to certify the election, and they'll try to hijack the electoral college (again).
The 119th Congress will be seated on January 3rd 2025 and the presidential election certification will be January 6th. So if the Dems win the majority in 2024, they won't have the power to deny certificatation outright. Though, I'm sure a minority will still object to every swing state like they did in 2020, just to draw it out.
Fascism just keeps coming back and we gotta stave it off again
Weeds needs trimming. Or in this case punching, stomping, and and a good old dick twist
Sadly they might enjoy all of that.
Matt Gaetz has entered the chat
The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance.
And even if the 119th Congress was exactly the same as this one, the House Republicans can only do so much.
First, they would need to object to Electoral Votes with a Senator. (Unfortunately, this wouldn't be hard for them to do.) Next, the House and Senate would separate to vote on each objection. Only if both chambers voted to set the Electoral Votes aside would they be set aside.
With a Democratic Senate, this won't happen.
So the House Republicans can slow things down, but they won't be able to overturn elections. This isn't to say that there aren't threats on the state and local level. There are. And if the Republicans gain control of the House and Senate, I could see them sustaining objections because "it must be fraud if Biden won," thus giving the election to Trump. That just shows why it's more important than ever to vote blue.
They are very unlikely to win the majority.
I'm betting on this guy not lasting until November 2024 (not sure what the over/under is on November 17, 2023).
How do you think he'll get removed? It took them this long to agree on someone to elect, it seems unlikely enough of them would agree to remove him. They could maybe get the Democrats along with a small subset of Republicans to vote him out like the last time, but I'm not sure the Democrats would be up for that. Maybe if they wait until right before the election, but I can't imagine the GOP being dumb enough to oust the speaker right before elections happen (although that does raise the question of who certifies the election if there's no speaker. I'm assuming the speaker pro tem?).
Yeah, this is the guy the MAGAs could support. The little rebellion is over, and they got what they wanted.
Via the same rule through which McCarthy was removed. After years of a Motion to Vacate the speakership requiring much more than a single vote, the GOP demanded that it be reverted to an older, single vote rule before McCarthy would be considered for speaker. This is before the first vote was ever cast, and that rule still stands. It was written into the 118th Congress rules and has not been rescinded.
In other words, the GOP can do this over and over and over again, as many times as they get a call from Putin to do so. They can oust any and every speaker at will, keeping Congress at a standstill and the government in chaos as long as they can get a simple ~~GOP~~ majority vote.
But they won't have to, because this asshole is one of the Rs that voted against the continuing resolution that is the only thing keeping government open right now. When that 45-day clock runs out in November, the new Speaker is going to stonewall just like he did before, and will likely keep his seat throughout any government shutdown he succeeds in creating.
They don't need a GOP majority vote. They need a house majority vote. And unless dems have some compelling reason to keep the republican speaker (unlikely), it only takes a handful from the GOP to oust the speaker. I think McCarthy only lost 8 republican votes.
Quite right. Thank you for the correction.
The only possible chance the democrats don't collectively vote him out, given the chance, is if the budget hasn't gone through yet. Otherwise, they will take any call to eject the speaker as an opportunity to oust him.
I tend to agree, but let's remember that Republicans ousted McCarthy, it only took one member requesting to call for a vote, and they had had a giant number of votes to get him in initially. Those maga Republicans are nutty, I wouldn't count on them not getting pissed off and trying to break all the toys again.
What are the chances election denial just become the new norm indefinitely?
Yes.
Bold of you to assume that they'll hang on to their majority. I don't see how they do.
Trump won't even be on the ballot in most states.
"this one's marked Jesus Christ"
"Yeah we count those as for the Republican"
Donaghy you magnificent son of a bitch!
Hopefully, but I also doubt that will stop them trying to elect him anyway. Or if not him I'm sure they'll find someone worse. I doubt we're going to see another Democrat elected in the next few elections that doesn't result in them trying to refuse to certify the election and just in general whine and complain while throwing around baseless accusations. If we're lucky that's as far as it goes, but considering how many parallels to 1920s Germany we're seeing lately I'm very worried the MAGAts recent fascist dabblings are just a taste of things to come.
Outrageously false.
There is nothing that even comes close to settling that in any state at this point. Any speculation on the matter is as good as a handful of shit. Less, maybe.
Colorado has already blocked him from the ballot under the 14th Amendment Section three. Only a 2/3 vote in Congress will change that.
"Survives legal challenge" does not mean it's settled. There is a long fucking way to go here.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/21/politics/colorado-lawsuit-trump-ballot/index.html
"Can move forward" means "definitely still in process"
https://www.kktv.com/2023/10/23/lawsuit-aiming-block-former-president-donald-trump-colorado-ballot-can-move-forward-judge-rules/
"Could keep trump off the ballot" means "still eligible to be on the ballot"
https://www.businessinsider.com/colorado-case-reject-trump-president-candidacy-not-dismissed-14th-amendment-2023-10
First you said:
Then you said:
Colorado is but one state, and while I deeply appreciate Colorado's efforts to right its wrongs (cough Boebert cough) Colorado cannot legislate the ballots of other states, even when they're using the Constitution to do so in their own.
EDITED for clarity, and also to commend @MorrisonMotel6@lemm.ee's excellent, multi-sourced correction in regard to what is actually happening with the 2024 presidential ballot in Colorado.
And for the record, the person you're responding to is flat out wrong. Colorado has ABSOLUTELY NOT made any sort of legal ruling to settle that suit
Colorado has been the tip of the spear for legislation nation wide for decades now. It's what we do.
As a Coloradan - Put the weed down and step away from the keyboard. I love this state as much as the next guy, but you are out of your mind if you think this state is the tip of the spear.
Your flag is a bit naff.
At least they have a real flag instead of far too many states with just their seal on blue.
I wonder if that also makes write-ins invalid…
Like is he just removed from the ballot, or is he ineligible altogether?
Election law varies from state to state. But generally from what I gather, a write-in candidate is only valid if the candidate registers with the state in advance.
If there's a winning plurality for Mickey Mouse in your state for a statewide office, it won't matter. The state won't be forced to see if there's anyone there that has the name Mickey Mouse and then pick which (if more than one) was the individual meant by the voters. Someone has to register with the state saying that they're going to run a write-in campaign for office with name XYZ.
Note that these details are a bit of a side track. The above person was talking about Trump being excluded due to the 14th amendment. However that doesn't say "not on the ballot" — it invalidates people from office entirely. If applied to Trump, the not being on the ballot would be a consequence of being determined ineligible for office, not a method to make him unable to win. Also it's all moot: while I think on the face of it the correct action would be to apply the 14th amendment to Trump, the fact of the matter is that this will not happen. States are not going to be willing to risk the political backlash from going down that path, so they will not.
We have a case in colorado that is going forward I believe
Wait really?
No. Not really. Not even a little bit.
There ARE legal challenges in some states, however. To date, none of those are even close to being settled