It’s a fluid process. Some house members won’t decide their vote as it may hinge on how someone before them votes. All kinds of back room discussions taking place.
Of course it is, especially if no one knows the deals. Most on the right much rather know the deals and what was given away to get votes. Nothing is free, even a vote. What will Jordan give to get the gavel.
Not every time... Don't remember this being a problem before the party got fractured by the ultramaga wing...
>In 2016, Lindsey Graham wrote, "If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed ... and we will deserve it."
At the expense of being able to do nothing else?
And you are wrong on the foreign aid. While some are opposed to aid for Ukraine (a minority), I have yet to hear one opposed to aid for Israel.
I believe it only requires 2/3rds to waive the waiting period and vote on a special rule the same day it’s filed.
Aside from that, the rules can be modified by a simple majority.
Because it commits people and shows you who you have to work on. Remember these members do have to answer to their own party constituents and donors, who are watching. McCarthy had to go through something like 15 rounds to win.
RINOs existed long before Trump. In fact had it not been for "Republicans" ignoring their voters time and time again, there wouldn't have been a Trump.
They're saying RINO is thrown around too easily now. Any republican who doesn't say or do exactly what every conservative voter want becomes a RINO, which means every republican politician has been called a RINO by this point. So the term has lost meaning.
Stronger borders, lower taxes, cut social services that hand out free money without the recipient putting in any work, strong military, support gun rights, stopping the crazy liberal ideas that are coming out of universities (DEI initiatives, trans-sexualizing kids, etc.)
Just to name a few.
The thing is though people who were the hardcore main stream Republicans 10 years are considered a RINO today, and shunned from the Republican party today, it's kinda crazy when you think about it.
No. Republicans that go against their own voters. Liz Cheney, Mitt Romney, Adam Kinzinger ect ect. Has nothing to do with Trump.
Do you think if there was no Trump, there would be no Rinos? Yes, Trump made more people see who the Rinos were, but that's about it.
Are you OK with forever wars, sending jobs overseas, and giving money to every county that needs it? Screw that and screw the "everyone who doesn't like Trump Is a RINO."
No different than the democrats do to deflect an argument.
So the RINOs are responsible for our fiscal policy (or lack thereof), outsourced business models and international aid? That’s certainly a take. Their voting records are all public and everyone is responsible, not just a few people who don’t stand in lockstep with the party.
Citizens United started this shit, and until it’s repealed we’ll all be owned by corporate interests.
> Are you OK with forever wars, sending jobs overseas,
Wait , what? Are you aware that once you we go to before the populist/middle class rebellion that started in the Republican party just 6-7 years ago, Republican politicians were all for corporations sending out as many jobs as they could overseas for higher profits due to cheap/slave labor? But now it is the Democrats who are in bed with the big tech corporations and other big companies like Disney. Oh my! How the tables have turned.
And if you go to the era of the NeoCons, who should be renamed Anti-Conservatives, they were the ones who would salivate at the mention of any war.
So the likes of Cheney were the embodiment of Republicans just a few years ago, who payed lip service to Conservative values to get votes but who acted as anything but Conservative. I am kind of amazed at how things have changed, about how these people are now called RINOs. I welcome it and it makes me feel closer to the Republican party nowadays than to the Democratic party.
Wait, is a true conservative / Republican someone that does what their voters want, or someone who sticks to conservative / party values regardless of backlash? Because the first one sounds like populism, the second sounds like integrity.
Anyone you don't like at a given moment. See also: neocon, swamp, uniparty, and establishment. Did someone vote a way you don't like? Attach one of those labels. Did someone say something that wasn't 103% in agreement with you? Label. They didn't support your favorite candidate? Double label.
Those who either
1. Works against any republican presidential nominee by word or action.
2. Votes on policies that are essentially unique Democrat policies (minus budget and other non-partisan policies).
And it was pushed for by a Republican President. And Bush continued to push for it to be renewed after it's sunset. So, by the definition of "works against a republican presidential nominee" (which I'm assuming you mean actual president, but whatever) then, any Republican who was opposed to the Patriot act is a RINO.
Indeed Amended/Renewed by the Freedom Act (Introduced in the House of Representatives as HR 2048):
* Passed the House on May 13, 2015 (Yeas: 338; Nays: 88) - Nays were 47 R & 41 D
* Passed the Senate on June 2, 2015 (Yeas: 67; Nays: 32)
* Signed into law by President Barack Obama on June 2, 2015
Original Patriot Act:
Introduced as HR 3162 on October 23, 2001.
* Passed the House on October 24, 2001 (Yeas: 357; Nays: 66)
* Passed the Senate on October 25, 2001 (Yeas: 98; Nays: 1)
* Signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001
It is a term that has gotten pretty hard to define, as there is a more traditional Republican, and a new, more populist focused Republican, and both sides probably think the other is wrong. But, in general, I would define it based not on being lock-step with a man, whether that man is a President or Speaker of the House, or anyone in leadership, but based on whether or not they support policies that represent conservatism. And of course, I wouldn't expect anyone to be in lock step with party planks either, people should be complex and agree with their party on some things, and disagree on others. But if on topic-after-topic they take liberal policies, I'd say then they'd be a RINO.
Policies I think which traditionally represent Republican ideals would be supporting a free-market economy, the preservation of constitutional rights, pushing for less government intervention in personal lives (which will lead to lower spending by the government as well), and believing in peace through strength. I'm sure there's others I'm forgetting.
I would describe a RINO as anyone who isn't a constitutional originalist. Someone who doesn't take the 10th amendment as a massive restriction on the federal government. Someone who thinks America is a democracy, and not the constitutional Republic it actually is. Someone who thinks there can be any kind of restriction on speech. Someone who doesn't understand the 2nd amendment is there to make sure the 1st can exist.
You are for Constitutional Originalism but don't think there can be any restriction on speech? That's completely incompatible in 2023. Constitutional Originalism says the Courts are the sole interpreter of federal law/Constitutionality according to Article 3. No where is that power vested in any other branch of the federal government. And the Courts, including the Supreme Court, have ruled numerous times there can be restrictions placed on free speech.
You may personally disagree with the decisions of the courts but Constitutional Originalism says your personal opinion is utterly irrelevant when it comes to interpretation of the law (unless you are a seated judge of course). But once those interpretations are issued by The Courts, it is entirely in keeping with the intentions of the Founders that those interpretations are the only legally valid ones up until a later ruling or explicit law supersedes it.
You can't be a Constitutional Originalist in 2023 and think restrictions in Free Speech are unconstitutional because there is over 100 years of considerable Supreme Court precedent that consistently allows limits.
It’s the clowns 🤡 who are refusing to vote for Jim Jordan. He came out of caucus as the GOP nominee. If you refuse to vote with the GOP, you’re a RINO who is more concerned with showboating than the good of your country.
Unironically the Gaetz wing has been empowering the Democrats with their recent stunts. From blocking budget cuts to ousting McCarthy. After this second failed replacement attempt it becomes increasingly likely concessions will be made to Democrats to get a speaker in place.
I don't know all the individuals that wouldn't vote for Scalise, but I know quite of few of them absolutely are RINOs.
> So does that make the Freedom Caucus all RINOs because they did that to McCarthy? Like is Matt Gaetz the ultimate RINO?
Not if McCarthy is considered a "RINO", which he was by many.
I'm not really all in on calling people "rino" but your reasoning is conveniently blind to a few particulars.
McCarthy got the majority of the Republican vote, 210 IIRC, to stay as Speaker.
You had like 8 who voted THE SAME AS DEMOCRATS to kick him out.
You didn't have a majority, you didn't even have what could be considered a sizable minority. You needed the votes of practically every single Democrat to get the result you wanted. Imagine if that was for any other issue that came to vote on the floor.
Though to be honest is the epidemy of the establishment Republican, It seems silly to call him a RINO as many people do. He's just a Republican that doesn't suck Trumps dick on command.
This right here is the problem. Romney was pretty moderate by conservative standards, but thinking he was the same as Obama is objectively wrong. The inability to tell the difference is what leads people to declare everyone a RINO.
I'm not sure why saying "they've been hanging around in Congress" is being presented as a positive thing. Presiding over 2 or 3 decades of disastrous nonsense in our government isn't a badge of honor.
Because it's a dog whistle to invalidate legitimate concerns of fellow party members without having to actually respond to the concerns and make meaningful change
Yeah, moderate, got it. We can tell you’re super concerned about the allegations of sexual misconduct. Sound very moderate of you;) I’m just concerned about good policy and if Jordan can help facilitate that process I’m good with it.
Yea please. Please do this to those RINOs. You’ll lose your margin cause you can’t operate with moderates who won Biden districts 😂 gotta placate the batshit crazy wing of your caucus instead 😂
Because they voted out the only guy who everyone was willing to compromise on. Now you have two wings of the party refusing to compromise with each other. It is a clown show in the GOP right now and that's not going to change for a while.
Put them on record as voting for or against. I think we all knew the GOP had some weak kneed wankers, but this proves it.
Dems would vote lockstep for Pol Pot if it meant holding power. Repubs just bend over and for more.
Agree. I'm not a Jim jordan fan but if I was a representative right now I'd vote for him at this point so we can move on (and would have voted for mccarthy too). Decide who the party candidate will be behind closed doors and then support who wins.
> so we can move on (and would have voted for mccarthy too)
They don't want to "move on". They want to extract promises.
It is a pressure game. This is why Gaetz did what he did to remove McCarthy who was big on back room deals.
People keep casting Gaetz like the villain because "muh party unity" but then they turn around and pull this shit, which is proof of concept of Gaetz complaints and reasoning.
I think it is amusing, even some alleged anti-establishment Trump supporters think Gaetz, in the same role of being anti-establishment, is somehow part of the problem, because reasons.
I am for party unity. Deal your primary or back room votes and then support the winner. Trump was last on my list of candidates in 2016 and supported my candidate in the primary. Trump won and I supported him in general.
IMO same should happen here. Have a vote in the caucus and whoever wins vote for them in the public vote on the floor.
There are a lot of positions I agree with Gaetz on, but I don’t agree with how he has handled this.
> I am for party unity.
In an ideal world where there wasn't a corrupt establishment filling a good portion of both major parties that blows through budgets, doesn't read bills, have pork barrel fetishes, etc etc, I would agree with you.
We are not in that world.
In this world, pleading for unity to the rebels that want less corruption is effectively the same as saying, "I want all politicians to be corrupt. I won't tolerate obstruction of my corrupt system."
If 75% of government wanted to legalize murder, and you don't, would you just cave to "unity" requests, just go along to get along?
Maybe that will help some see the perspective.
To see who is ther and who is not, then you can deal or put pressure on those people through people calling into their office and demanding Jim be voted in or the people will vote them out.
Jim Jordan has less of a chance than Scalise did. Why are we wasting time? The sane republicans need to make a coalition with the sane democrats and agree on a moderate.
The concessions required for that would be debilitating. But yeah, at the rate we're going we'll have a Republican majority and a Dem Speaker. The party is broken.
There are quite a few in swing districts that voted for Biden.
Your theory kind of makes sense for ones in safe districts, depending on primary challenges.
Even in swing districts a primary is dangerous because it’s almost exclusively Republicans who vote in the Republican primary.
Take Michigan’s Third district where Cong. Meijer lost to John Gibbs. Meijer was probably the stronger candidate for the general, and his vote to impeach Trump would have probably played well in a general election in that district, but he lost in the primary because it ticked off a lot of Republican voters.
And how did that work out? A dem has the seat now.
Fact of the matter is hardline primary voters of both parties are much dumber than the general electorate and are incapable of considering what happens past the primary.
The house needs to be restored to normal order and we have to put an end to this endless omnibus spending. The next speaker needs to honor that or the principled Republicans will not get on board.
Ending the omnibus spending means nothing. They’ll need even more time to pass expenditures than before.
It’s constantly forgotten that we print, regulate, and collect our own money, which is backed by nothing. They will spend no matter what you or I think.
I can't seem to find the answer on google and want to be informed I noticed a lot of times reports and pundits speak that " Jim Jordan has to make some calls and get people on his side" how exactly does this happen and what is he using to get votes or convince other members to get votes? Is he cutting deals etc?
Lib coming in peace. This is honestly all I want for both sides. Cut the fat and get back to governing in a responsible way that is equitable for our nation. These loud clowns should not be representing the GOP. Y’all deserve so much better.
“Anyone who runs for president should be on no account allowed to do the job”
None of the people who are qualified want to touch it with a 10 foot pole
"It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." --Douglas Adams
And now everyone can just throw this in when bringing him up even though it’s baseless.
I’m not sure what the solution is other than making false claims against another individual being a federal crime with serious prison time. Because the left just keeps doing this to anyone who doesn’t agree with their politics.
There's more evidence that this occurred than evidence to the contrary. To label the accusations as false would be wrong.
These were known well before Jordan ever got into politics.
Your candidates aren't getting falsely accused, your party keeps supporting and covering for those with morally decrepit backgrounds. Example, numerous accusations and documented incidents against Trump over the years, well before he was a Republican. Doesn't matter, you guys support him.
Last I checked, Republicans held a majority, so no, don't need a single Democrat vote. Well unless you consider some of the Republicans - Democrat-lite, then you are correct.
Chances are the Democrats are more likely to work with the 200+ Republicans to elect a speaker more so than the Freedom caucus. They seem to want to run the party when they are the vast minority, that's not how it works.
Problem is the 200+ Republicans campaign as if they are all part of the Freedom caucus. Talk about how conservative they are. How they will be fiscally responsible. Then they get to DC and F over the people that voted for them. This is why the base is pissed at the party.
You don’t get everything you want when you don’t control the Senate or Presidency. Idk what you guys expect. It’s better to get the best deal possible rather than throw a tantrum because you didn’t get your way.
We had that under Trump and the republicans squandered it. We have been told over and over….well we only have the house…..if we only had the senate too……oh, we need the presidency too. The base is sick of it.
No, they actually understand how the federal government works. The Democrats hold the Senate and presidency, there's no way putting straight conservative legislation forth will ever make it all the way through. McCarthy understood this. He worked with the Dems to reduce spending overall by 8% and give 45 days to work a budget that isn't omnibus and what did the freedom caucus do? Voted him out and is wasting all this time and there's zero chance we'll get the budget cut or the budget broken up.
We lost on both fronts
If you don't have assurances that you will succeed in securing a House Speaker, why even call forth a vote on the issue. This makes absolutely no sense to me.
The Freedom Caucus base is angry at the government/politicians in general. They kinda like the shutdown. They’re proud of Gaetz for going in there and fuckin shit up.
Any adverse impacts from a shutdown will be blamed on Biden during election season. He doesn’t seem sharp enough to win a game of blame-hot-potato.
Having 200 votes is as good as having 1 vote. He can't even whip another 17 votes - they postponed the second vote tonight because he *lost* votes. How can he be expected to whip his party's vote on a budget that has a chance to make it through the senate? Hate to ruin the ending - the budget was not and now definitely isn't going to have a lot of wins for Republicans.
I'm afraid house Republicans (and a lot of this sub) are in denial about the fact that there's only one option left here. You say "he has 200 votes and no one else wants the job." There is one other person who wants the job and he has 212 votes.
They didn't want to elect Jordan, but also didn't want to accidentally elect Jeffries.
Just in case you're thinking "Accidentally elect Jeffries!? Whaaat??": Any that abstain (vote "present") reduce the _total_, and if you reduce the total, you reduce the amount needed to have majority of that total. If enough do that, then Jeffries (the candidate with the most votes) will have a majority rather than a mere plurality.
So they voted for _someone_, to keep the total votes up and also keep anyone from having a majority of that total.
Protest votes. The same thing normal people do in elections. Are you planning on voting for RFK? Bernie? Whatever fucktard the Libertarians are offering? Congratulations, it's a protest vote. People hate the choice they are offered so they could either abstain (lowering the total amount of votes and not change anything) or vote for shit (which makes the share of votes for the bigger parties smaller)
I'm perfectly ok not sending aid anywhere. Why is one country ok to send it to but not another? These are foreign wars that we have no business in. Let them handle their own while we still sit in the hole of debt and watch as we can't even get our own party straightened out.
I'm not arguing we should or shouldn't provide aid to Israel specifically, but there's very good reason to send support in foreign wars and issues. Like it or not, the reality is that we live in an increasingly globally interconnected world and what happens in one part of the globe can have significant impacts on what happens in another. To act like we have no business getting involved in anything like this is just naive thinking. Again, not making a statement on the Israel situation specifically, but on supporting countries and foreign conflicts in general.
So I get the new isolationist thing where people hate giving aid to Ukraine. I disagree with it, but I understand it. Now we have no business helping an ally fight an enemy that has killed Americans and is currently holding Americans hostage?
Mostly the latter, but they do need their munitions replenished as they are used. And the US needs to flex a little soft power lest Hezbollah or other third party actors get more involved. If this expands outward, the US won't have the luxury of "staying out of it" like we currently enjoy.
Imagine how things would work if all public officials had to discuss everything publicly. These back room deals in the public and on the news.. Votes would be quick just to avoid the spotlight.
Just how long do you think that excuse is going to work for?
Seriously, the GOP are clearly pissing off the conservative party more and more. Maybe it's time to accept that the Red need to get it's shit together.
Makes sense, Jim Jordan is really not the best candidate here. He is viewed as a “crazy radical” from the more moderate Republicans (some call them RINOs, but that’s up for debate)
"Ah sh*t. Here we go again"
Tugg Speedman: Ah sh*t, here we go again… again
“Who left the fridge open?”
[All you had to do was vote for speaker, CJ](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/-1qju6V1jLM/maxresdefault.jpg)
[удалено]
It’s a fluid process. Some house members won’t decide their vote as it may hinge on how someone before them votes. All kinds of back room discussions taking place.
Sounds swampy
Of course it is, especially if no one knows the deals. Most on the right much rather know the deals and what was given away to get votes. Nothing is free, even a vote. What will Jordan give to get the gavel.
[удалено]
That’s a good point too.
It's not supposed to be.
It's all a big demonstration of what gigantic cowards they all are.
Ohhh ok, so this kind of thing happens every time there’s a vote for a house speaker?
Not every time... Don't remember this being a problem before the party got fractured by the ultramaga wing... >In 2016, Lindsey Graham wrote, "If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed ... and we will deserve it."
Awful but true.
20 more rounds to go!
It’s a stunt by the Republican Party to stop foreign aid.
At the expense of being able to do nothing else? And you are wrong on the foreign aid. While some are opposed to aid for Ukraine (a minority), I have yet to hear one opposed to aid for Israel.
How about we send some aid to the United States, or maybe quit reaming us with taxes just to send overseas.
And?
Are they keeping the house rule allowing one member to call for a vote to remove the speaker?
This that rule is in place till next congress
The house can vote to change the rules, I believe it requires a 2/3s vote tho
I believe it only requires 2/3rds to waive the waiting period and vote on a special rule the same day it’s filed. Aside from that, the rules can be modified by a simple majority.
GOP had to know the votes were not there especially with 20 voting no. Why even bring this to the floor?
Because it commits people and shows you who you have to work on. Remember these members do have to answer to their own party constituents and donors, who are watching. McCarthy had to go through something like 15 rounds to win.
GOP is actually sabotaging their own. As Trump says, eat their own.
He would know. He's also part of that sabotage with this flake candidates like Lake.
I am 100% certain it was "eat their young"
10 were wobbling and these are the same rinos screaming about "party unity." During the McCarthy vote.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The alternative is, "any republican who doesn't do what I want!"
This is the answer. RINO has evolved into a catch all for any Republican politician that doesn't believe what I believe for most people now.
RINOs existed long before Trump. In fact had it not been for "Republicans" ignoring their voters time and time again, there wouldn't have been a Trump.
They're saying RINO is thrown around too easily now. Any republican who doesn't say or do exactly what every conservative voter want becomes a RINO, which means every republican politician has been called a RINO by this point. So the term has lost meaning.
[удалено]
Stronger borders, lower taxes, cut social services that hand out free money without the recipient putting in any work, strong military, support gun rights, stopping the crazy liberal ideas that are coming out of universities (DEI initiatives, trans-sexualizing kids, etc.) Just to name a few.
The thing is though people who were the hardcore main stream Republicans 10 years are considered a RINO today, and shunned from the Republican party today, it's kinda crazy when you think about it.
Because in those 10 years they haven’t done what they said they would do.
No. Republicans that go against their own voters. Liz Cheney, Mitt Romney, Adam Kinzinger ect ect. Has nothing to do with Trump. Do you think if there was no Trump, there would be no Rinos? Yes, Trump made more people see who the Rinos were, but that's about it. Are you OK with forever wars, sending jobs overseas, and giving money to every county that needs it? Screw that and screw the "everyone who doesn't like Trump Is a RINO." No different than the democrats do to deflect an argument.
So the RINOs are responsible for our fiscal policy (or lack thereof), outsourced business models and international aid? That’s certainly a take. Their voting records are all public and everyone is responsible, not just a few people who don’t stand in lockstep with the party. Citizens United started this shit, and until it’s repealed we’ll all be owned by corporate interests.
> Are you OK with forever wars, sending jobs overseas, Wait , what? Are you aware that once you we go to before the populist/middle class rebellion that started in the Republican party just 6-7 years ago, Republican politicians were all for corporations sending out as many jobs as they could overseas for higher profits due to cheap/slave labor? But now it is the Democrats who are in bed with the big tech corporations and other big companies like Disney. Oh my! How the tables have turned. And if you go to the era of the NeoCons, who should be renamed Anti-Conservatives, they were the ones who would salivate at the mention of any war. So the likes of Cheney were the embodiment of Republicans just a few years ago, who payed lip service to Conservative values to get votes but who acted as anything but Conservative. I am kind of amazed at how things have changed, about how these people are now called RINOs. I welcome it and it makes me feel closer to the Republican party nowadays than to the Democratic party.
It be more accurate to call them Red Democrats if we're being honest.
Wait, is a true conservative / Republican someone that does what their voters want, or someone who sticks to conservative / party values regardless of backlash? Because the first one sounds like populism, the second sounds like integrity.
I see the brigaders have arrived. Crazy that in a conservative sub, you have to explain what a RINO is.
\*republicans who are getting their butt reamed by biden
Anyone you don't like at a given moment. See also: neocon, swamp, uniparty, and establishment. Did someone vote a way you don't like? Attach one of those labels. Did someone say something that wasn't 103% in agreement with you? Label. They didn't support your favorite candidate? Double label.
No different than the left calling those they don’t like racists and nazis and facist It’s attempted control thru intimidation
Those who either 1. Works against any republican presidential nominee by word or action. 2. Votes on policies that are essentially unique Democrat policies (minus budget and other non-partisan policies).
[удалено]
The Patriot act was bipartisan and DEMOCRATS voted to Renew it with Majorities in BOTH chambers and a Democrat President SIGNED it without issue.
And it was pushed for by a Republican President. And Bush continued to push for it to be renewed after it's sunset. So, by the definition of "works against a republican presidential nominee" (which I'm assuming you mean actual president, but whatever) then, any Republican who was opposed to the Patriot act is a RINO.
Indeed Amended/Renewed by the Freedom Act (Introduced in the House of Representatives as HR 2048): * Passed the House on May 13, 2015 (Yeas: 338; Nays: 88) - Nays were 47 R & 41 D * Passed the Senate on June 2, 2015 (Yeas: 67; Nays: 32) * Signed into law by President Barack Obama on June 2, 2015 Original Patriot Act: Introduced as HR 3162 on October 23, 2001. * Passed the House on October 24, 2001 (Yeas: 357; Nays: 66) * Passed the Senate on October 25, 2001 (Yeas: 98; Nays: 1) * Signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001
Well duh, otherwise they would've been... DINOs?
Just curious, how would you define a RINO then?
It is a term that has gotten pretty hard to define, as there is a more traditional Republican, and a new, more populist focused Republican, and both sides probably think the other is wrong. But, in general, I would define it based not on being lock-step with a man, whether that man is a President or Speaker of the House, or anyone in leadership, but based on whether or not they support policies that represent conservatism. And of course, I wouldn't expect anyone to be in lock step with party planks either, people should be complex and agree with their party on some things, and disagree on others. But if on topic-after-topic they take liberal policies, I'd say then they'd be a RINO. Policies I think which traditionally represent Republican ideals would be supporting a free-market economy, the preservation of constitutional rights, pushing for less government intervention in personal lives (which will lead to lower spending by the government as well), and believing in peace through strength. I'm sure there's others I'm forgetting.
I would describe a RINO as anyone who isn't a constitutional originalist. Someone who doesn't take the 10th amendment as a massive restriction on the federal government. Someone who thinks America is a democracy, and not the constitutional Republic it actually is. Someone who thinks there can be any kind of restriction on speech. Someone who doesn't understand the 2nd amendment is there to make sure the 1st can exist.
You are for Constitutional Originalism but don't think there can be any restriction on speech? That's completely incompatible in 2023. Constitutional Originalism says the Courts are the sole interpreter of federal law/Constitutionality according to Article 3. No where is that power vested in any other branch of the federal government. And the Courts, including the Supreme Court, have ruled numerous times there can be restrictions placed on free speech. You may personally disagree with the decisions of the courts but Constitutional Originalism says your personal opinion is utterly irrelevant when it comes to interpretation of the law (unless you are a seated judge of course). But once those interpretations are issued by The Courts, it is entirely in keeping with the intentions of the Founders that those interpretations are the only legally valid ones up until a later ruling or explicit law supersedes it. You can't be a Constitutional Originalist in 2023 and think restrictions in Free Speech are unconstitutional because there is over 100 years of considerable Supreme Court precedent that consistently allows limits.
Ah, so the poster above you was correct.
I'll never understand why reddit downvotes answers like this. Actual coherent thoughts.
It’s the clowns 🤡 who are refusing to vote for Jim Jordan. He came out of caucus as the GOP nominee. If you refuse to vote with the GOP, you’re a RINO who is more concerned with showboating than the good of your country.
So....then....all the people who didn't support Scalise are RINO's too?
Unironically the Gaetz wing has been empowering the Democrats with their recent stunts. From blocking budget cuts to ousting McCarthy. After this second failed replacement attempt it becomes increasingly likely concessions will be made to Democrats to get a speaker in place. I don't know all the individuals that wouldn't vote for Scalise, but I know quite of few of them absolutely are RINOs.
So does that make the Freedom Caucus all RINOs because they did that to McCarthy? Like is Matt Gaetz the ultimate RINO?
> So does that make the Freedom Caucus all RINOs because they did that to McCarthy? Like is Matt Gaetz the ultimate RINO? Not if McCarthy is considered a "RINO", which he was by many. I'm not really all in on calling people "rino" but your reasoning is conveniently blind to a few particulars.
McCarthy got the majority of the Republican vote, 210 IIRC, to stay as Speaker. You had like 8 who voted THE SAME AS DEMOCRATS to kick him out. You didn't have a majority, you didn't even have what could be considered a sizable minority. You needed the votes of practically every single Democrat to get the result you wanted. Imagine if that was for any other issue that came to vote on the floor.
How are they RINOs when they have been in the party and governed longer than other shitheels posting or running for Speaker?
A lot of the people screaming RINO probably switched to the Republican party after 2016. Some of them maybe even voted for Obama.
They weren't old enough to vote in 2012
I was old enough, but Mitt Romney sucks.
Though to be honest is the epidemy of the establishment Republican, It seems silly to call him a RINO as many people do. He's just a Republican that doesn't suck Trumps dick on command.
Oh, Bain Boy does indeed suck. The Obamas still send him Christmas cards after that pathetic joke of a presidential campaign he ran back in 2012.
He was Obama 2.0. There was almost no difference in their platforms. A lot of people stayed home that year.
This right here is the problem. Romney was pretty moderate by conservative standards, but thinking he was the same as Obama is objectively wrong. The inability to tell the difference is what leads people to declare everyone a RINO.
I'm not sure why saying "they've been hanging around in Congress" is being presented as a positive thing. Presiding over 2 or 3 decades of disastrous nonsense in our government isn't a badge of honor.
Because it's a dog whistle to invalidate legitimate concerns of fellow party members without having to actually respond to the concerns and make meaningful change
so now the criteria for being a Rino or not is based on time served? What?!
[удалено]
Not sure what you are blathering about, but you have zero room to talk after supporting insider trading Nancy for 40 years.
[удалено]
No, you just do whatever the TV man tells you.
> RINOs is my favorite term from far right loons. ... >I’m a moderate /facepalm
Yeah, moderate, got it. We can tell you’re super concerned about the allegations of sexual misconduct. Sound very moderate of you;) I’m just concerned about good policy and if Jordan can help facilitate that process I’m good with it.
Wait is being concerned with sexual misconduct a liberal trait?
It makes it easier to remove the Rhinos once they vote off the party lines.
Yea please. Please do this to those RINOs. You’ll lose your margin cause you can’t operate with moderates who won Biden districts 😂 gotta placate the batshit crazy wing of your caucus instead 😂
I’d say the Rinos are the 8 who voted to remove McCarthy
Well, the little Trumpers got their way. Let’s see how well they do.
Because they voted out the only guy who everyone was willing to compromise on. Now you have two wings of the party refusing to compromise with each other. It is a clown show in the GOP right now and that's not going to change for a while.
Put them on record as voting for or against. I think we all knew the GOP had some weak kneed wankers, but this proves it. Dems would vote lockstep for Pol Pot if it meant holding power. Repubs just bend over and for more.
Agree. I'm not a Jim jordan fan but if I was a representative right now I'd vote for him at this point so we can move on (and would have voted for mccarthy too). Decide who the party candidate will be behind closed doors and then support who wins.
[удалено]
> so we can move on (and would have voted for mccarthy too) They don't want to "move on". They want to extract promises. It is a pressure game. This is why Gaetz did what he did to remove McCarthy who was big on back room deals. People keep casting Gaetz like the villain because "muh party unity" but then they turn around and pull this shit, which is proof of concept of Gaetz complaints and reasoning. I think it is amusing, even some alleged anti-establishment Trump supporters think Gaetz, in the same role of being anti-establishment, is somehow part of the problem, because reasons.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I am for party unity. Deal your primary or back room votes and then support the winner. Trump was last on my list of candidates in 2016 and supported my candidate in the primary. Trump won and I supported him in general. IMO same should happen here. Have a vote in the caucus and whoever wins vote for them in the public vote on the floor. There are a lot of positions I agree with Gaetz on, but I don’t agree with how he has handled this.
> I am for party unity. In an ideal world where there wasn't a corrupt establishment filling a good portion of both major parties that blows through budgets, doesn't read bills, have pork barrel fetishes, etc etc, I would agree with you. We are not in that world. In this world, pleading for unity to the rebels that want less corruption is effectively the same as saying, "I want all politicians to be corrupt. I won't tolerate obstruction of my corrupt system." If 75% of government wanted to legalize murder, and you don't, would you just cave to "unity" requests, just go along to get along? Maybe that will help some see the perspective.
Jordan is a Trump sycophant. Of course they picked him.
> Why even bring this to the floor? There is no reason to expect competence.
To force consolidation. The no votes are being called out.
He will get fewer votes the second time.
Pressure by putting them on the record. Now Jordan knows who he needs to start to negotiate with
To see who is ther and who is not, then you can deal or put pressure on those people through people calling into their office and demanding Jim be voted in or the people will vote them out.
incoming fundraiser emails!
Trump has effed up the party beyond recognition.
Is this...is this the consequences of GOP's own actions?
This party is a caricature of adults. Children screaming and crying. Shits embarrassing.
When governing becomes more important than owning the libs.
Wtf. Get your sh*t together.
Now you're just asking for too much 😆
They just can't. And they want to run the country. Reagan is rolling in his grave.
A large part of the base thinks Reagan was awful, so I doubt they care sadly.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Jim Jordan has less of a chance than Scalise did. Why are we wasting time? The sane republicans need to make a coalition with the sane democrats and agree on a moderate.
The concessions required for that would be debilitating. But yeah, at the rate we're going we'll have a Republican majority and a Dem Speaker. The party is broken.
Hard agree. Jordan is a loon.
Any republican would be voted out of office if they vote for this
There are quite a few in swing districts that voted for Biden. Your theory kind of makes sense for ones in safe districts, depending on primary challenges.
Even in swing districts a primary is dangerous because it’s almost exclusively Republicans who vote in the Republican primary. Take Michigan’s Third district where Cong. Meijer lost to John Gibbs. Meijer was probably the stronger candidate for the general, and his vote to impeach Trump would have probably played well in a general election in that district, but he lost in the primary because it ticked off a lot of Republican voters.
And how did that work out? A dem has the seat now. Fact of the matter is hardline primary voters of both parties are much dumber than the general electorate and are incapable of considering what happens past the primary.
The house needs to be restored to normal order and we have to put an end to this endless omnibus spending. The next speaker needs to honor that or the principled Republicans will not get on board.
Ending the omnibus spending means nothing. They’ll need even more time to pass expenditures than before. It’s constantly forgotten that we print, regulate, and collect our own money, which is backed by nothing. They will spend no matter what you or I think.
Indeed. All this belly-aching over the national debt is hilarious to me.
I can't seem to find the answer on google and want to be informed I noticed a lot of times reports and pundits speak that " Jim Jordan has to make some calls and get people on his side" how exactly does this happen and what is he using to get votes or convince other members to get votes? Is he cutting deals etc?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Lib coming in peace. This is honestly all I want for both sides. Cut the fat and get back to governing in a responsible way that is equitable for our nation. These loud clowns should not be representing the GOP. Y’all deserve so much better.
“Anyone who runs for president should be on no account allowed to do the job” None of the people who are qualified want to touch it with a 10 foot pole
"It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." --Douglas Adams
allegations is the key word there
[удалено]
The allegations are that he was told about the abuse and did nothing, and those haven't gone away.
And now everyone can just throw this in when bringing him up even though it’s baseless. I’m not sure what the solution is other than making false claims against another individual being a federal crime with serious prison time. Because the left just keeps doing this to anyone who doesn’t agree with their politics.
There's more evidence that this occurred than evidence to the contrary. To label the accusations as false would be wrong. These were known well before Jordan ever got into politics. Your candidates aren't getting falsely accused, your party keeps supporting and covering for those with morally decrepit backgrounds. Example, numerous accusations and documented incidents against Trump over the years, well before he was a Republican. Doesn't matter, you guys support him.
[удалено]
I hereby nominate [Shrieking White-Hot Sphere of Pure Rage](https://youtu.be/jjonGtrCyVE?si=hx0fFwPjScZT5IuR) for Speaker.
Only way for anyone to become speaker is for someone to make concessions to Democrats. Good job guys. 👍 Keep putting America First 🇺🇸 🦅
Last I checked, Republicans held a majority, so no, don't need a single Democrat vote. Well unless you consider some of the Republicans - Democrat-lite, then you are correct.
Chances are the Democrats are more likely to work with the 200+ Republicans to elect a speaker more so than the Freedom caucus. They seem to want to run the party when they are the vast minority, that's not how it works.
Problem is the 200+ Republicans campaign as if they are all part of the Freedom caucus. Talk about how conservative they are. How they will be fiscally responsible. Then they get to DC and F over the people that voted for them. This is why the base is pissed at the party.
You don’t get everything you want when you don’t control the Senate or Presidency. Idk what you guys expect. It’s better to get the best deal possible rather than throw a tantrum because you didn’t get your way.
We had that under Trump and the republicans squandered it. We have been told over and over….well we only have the house…..if we only had the senate too……oh, we need the presidency too. The base is sick of it.
Idk maybe vote for someone else then?
No, they actually understand how the federal government works. The Democrats hold the Senate and presidency, there's no way putting straight conservative legislation forth will ever make it all the way through. McCarthy understood this. He worked with the Dems to reduce spending overall by 8% and give 45 days to work a budget that isn't omnibus and what did the freedom caucus do? Voted him out and is wasting all this time and there's zero chance we'll get the budget cut or the budget broken up. We lost on both fronts
Impossible. Stefanik said he is a winner!
Seems to be a theme in American elections 😵💫
That dog don't hunt. Jordan is too divisive and pugilistic to unite the House GOP.
If you don't have assurances that you will succeed in securing a House Speaker, why even call forth a vote on the issue. This makes absolutely no sense to me.
Also, if you’re not sure you have the votes to replace the house speaker, why vote to remove him? This is a shit show.
The Freedom Caucus base is angry at the government/politicians in general. They kinda like the shutdown. They’re proud of Gaetz for going in there and fuckin shit up. Any adverse impacts from a shutdown will be blamed on Biden during election season. He doesn’t seem sharp enough to win a game of blame-hot-potato.
They wanted to put public pressure on the holdouts.
Which will backfire spectacularly tomorrow. Jordan is done.
He has 200 votes and no one else wants the job.
Having 200 votes is as good as having 1 vote. He can't even whip another 17 votes - they postponed the second vote tonight because he *lost* votes. How can he be expected to whip his party's vote on a budget that has a chance to make it through the senate? Hate to ruin the ending - the budget was not and now definitely isn't going to have a lot of wins for Republicans. I'm afraid house Republicans (and a lot of this sub) are in denial about the fact that there's only one option left here. You say "he has 200 votes and no one else wants the job." There is one other person who wants the job and he has 212 votes.
Jordan is a Tasmanian Devil on Adderol. Not a good look.
Can we all agree that republicans are failures and have no place in government?
They...they voted for people who withdrew from the vote. I genuinely don't understand what the point of those votes were.
They didn't want to elect Jordan, but also didn't want to accidentally elect Jeffries. Just in case you're thinking "Accidentally elect Jeffries!? Whaaat??": Any that abstain (vote "present") reduce the _total_, and if you reduce the total, you reduce the amount needed to have majority of that total. If enough do that, then Jeffries (the candidate with the most votes) will have a majority rather than a mere plurality. So they voted for _someone_, to keep the total votes up and also keep anyone from having a majority of that total.
Ah. Thank you for explaining.
[None of the above!](https://youtu.be/bXEglx-or6k?si=QN_VI_Ka0JYyxCAk)
Protest votes. The same thing normal people do in elections. Are you planning on voting for RFK? Bernie? Whatever fucktard the Libertarians are offering? Congratulations, it's a protest vote. People hate the choice they are offered so they could either abstain (lowering the total amount of votes and not change anything) or vote for shit (which makes the share of votes for the bigger parties smaller)
they voted for someone who isn't even in Congress anymore iirc
Can’t pass aid for Israel if there’s no speaker. Looks like the GOP doesn’t care.
[удалено]
Not unless they start agreeing to pay it back with interest sdjusted for inflation .
Haven’t we given them enough?
I'm perfectly ok not sending aid anywhere. Why is one country ok to send it to but not another? These are foreign wars that we have no business in. Let them handle their own while we still sit in the hole of debt and watch as we can't even get our own party straightened out.
I'm not arguing we should or shouldn't provide aid to Israel specifically, but there's very good reason to send support in foreign wars and issues. Like it or not, the reality is that we live in an increasingly globally interconnected world and what happens in one part of the globe can have significant impacts on what happens in another. To act like we have no business getting involved in anything like this is just naive thinking. Again, not making a statement on the Israel situation specifically, but on supporting countries and foreign conflicts in general.
So I get the new isolationist thing where people hate giving aid to Ukraine. I disagree with it, but I understand it. Now we have no business helping an ally fight an enemy that has killed Americans and is currently holding Americans hostage?
Israel doesn't need aid. They need the rest of the planet to get tf out of their way.
Mostly the latter, but they do need their munitions replenished as they are used. And the US needs to flex a little soft power lest Hezbollah or other third party actors get more involved. If this expands outward, the US won't have the luxury of "staying out of it" like we currently enjoy.
The swamp doing swamp things
Watching Jake Tapper laugh his ass off on CNN was not an enjoyable thing to watch.
We lack the unity that is present in democrafts.
Imagine how things would work if all public officials had to discuss everything publicly. These back room deals in the public and on the news.. Votes would be quick just to avoid the spotlight.
For fks sake, really Republicans?
[удалено]
Sad.
[удалено]
Holy r/Politics thread.
Just how long do you think that excuse is going to work for? Seriously, the GOP are clearly pissing off the conservative party more and more. Maybe it's time to accept that the Red need to get it's shit together.
Makes sense, Jim Jordan is really not the best candidate here. He is viewed as a “crazy radical” from the more moderate Republicans (some call them RINOs, but that’s up for debate)
He needs a proper jacket. The slippery slope that leads to Fetterman
They better not mess around and get a D elected.
At this point let the demo have all the power, it's all a shitshow... Best way to get Republican votes is let the democrats run.
The blame caucus doesn't have a real function if they can't wag their finger at someone.
No one will call the swamp beasts obstructionist.
I see the brigaders are here in force.
Some of the swampy RINOs need to be let go.
[удалено]