68
Democrats warn Mike Johnson: We won't save you again
(www.axios.com)
Why did they save him in the first place?
I believe I read somewhere that they got some political concessions out of it and also wanted to actually get stuff done while a dem was the president. Now they have no incentive to help get unless they get something quite good back in return since republicans have a trifecta
They didn't help on his initial vote in nor did they help McCarthy
I believe I read somewhere that they got some political concessions out of it and also wanted to actually get stuff done while a dem was the president.
If this is what they got, then Democrats are even dumber than I thought. In what world would you even trust Johnson to keep his word? What do they expect to accomplish over the next 30 days that actually matters that's worth saving this clown? What kind of political concessions were they going to be able to get that they thought the incoming MAGA administration would even honor?
Unless they somehow expect to be able to get something that is going to be of significant and immediate benefit to the people, the only thing the Dems should be doing right now is sitting back and watching the GOP getting ready to burn the place down. If Johnson finds his own feet getting a little to close to the fire, then let his own party rescue him. They have the majority. Let him fall on his face so we can see another 3 week circus as they try to figure out which clown is in charge of handing out the red noses. That's at least 3 weeks where they're at least not taking a steaming shit all over American society for funzies. Hell, if we can get them to trip all over themselves trying to elect a speaker (after figuring out what the word "elect" means. Two syllables, you know.) for the next couple of years, that's probably the best possible outcome for this country. I'd rather them do that than try to enact Project 2025.
What do they expect to accomplish over the next 30 days
?
I think you misunderstand what I am referring to. I am referring to the second Johnson speaker vote which was in March and filed by MTG. They didn't know the results of the election nor did they want to get unfairly blamed for republican dysfunction in said election as often happens
In what world would you even trust Johnson to keep his word
The rules that republicans agreed on let all house members, including dems, call for a motion to vacate the speaker. Only needed a singular representative to do so and given that there were plenty of republicans willing to get rid of him, so they had some leverage over him
And to clarify the House Dems in the original article are talking about his next speaker vote come the start of next year
I think you misunderstand what I am referring to. I am referring to the second Johnson speaker vote which was in March and filed by MTG. They didn’t know the results of the election nor did they want to get unfairly blamed for republican dysfunction in said election as often happens
Fair enough. I had assumed they were willing to help him now, which would be a whole new level of stupid.
In what world would you even trust Johnson to keep his word
The rules that republicans agreed on let all house members, including dems, call for a motion to vacate the speaker. Only needed a singular representative to do so and given that there were plenty of republicans willing to get rid of him, so they had some leverage over him
I could be wrong and admittedly am too lazy to look it up, but I believe that it had to be a single Republican member. Allowing a single Democrat to make the motion to vacate the chair would just be introducing all sorts of chaos. And if they were allowed to do this and weren't taking advantage of it on the daily, then that's a massive fail on their part. With all of the infighting in the GOP, I'd be making the motion to vacate daily even if only for my own entertainment, because the deathmatch that would happen every time there's a vote for a new speaker would be better than anything WWE could put on.
And to clarify the House Dems in the original article are talking about his next speaker vote come the start of next year
I should hope so. There shouldn't be a single Democrat being willing to vote for anyone but Jeffries for any reason.
McCarthy?
You mean Kevin Eleven?
Freddie the Lobster says “just wait ‘till I get these fucking rubber bands off”
this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2024
68 points (93.6% liked)
politics
19239 readers
1873 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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS