McCarthey out as Speaker of the House - Bozo the clown on deck

[Copernicus]

Yes. Vast majority of Reps voted to keep McCarthy.

Republicans are the House majority.

McCarthy lost his post because Republican members of Congress didn't vote for him. After a Republican, Gaetz, decided to to take it to a vote.
This isn't rocket science. The Republicans got rid of McCarthy for their own reasons. Pretending that it was because Democrats is painfully stupid.
Tom

It seems that Derec will pursue this Republican talking point to infinity, since deflection seems to be their only avenue of escape from owning the crisis that they created. House speakers can take many ballots to arrive at, but there hasn't been a crisis this bad since 1855. And that one was caused by the ill-fated compromise between free states and slave states that ultimately led to the Civil War:

The Messiest Speakership Battle in History​

This one was caused by the stupid Republican motion-to-vacate rule that every Republican voted for and every Democrat voted against when this Congress started its session. That is what led to the crisis that political nihilist Matt Gaetz was able to bring about. A number of Democrats were even willing to vote for a Republican Speaker, if enough Republicans would agree to political concessions. Nevertheless, any kind of compromise deal with Democrats was out to the question in GOP world. So now they have the embarrassment of what they did hanging around their necks, and Republican partisans like Derec (who no doubt rankles at the idea of being called a partisan Republican) are busy parrotting their absurd attempts to blame Democrats for the mess they created.

 

[Rhea]

So why again do you think it was a good idea for Dems to vote with Gaetz?

You’ve already been told. Because McCarthy’s word was shit. He reneged on deals and broke his word. There was no point in keeping him.

 

[Patooka]

And the prospect of a one-party state is scary. I am not surprised you advocate it though.

It is scary and I don't support it. I prefer it because the alternative is complete dogshit. I am not surprised that nuance has escaped you.

Who are "my" McGovern Democrats exactly?

Sheesh, basic comprehension is difficult for you isn't it? Okay, your McGovern Democrats don't exist anymore. Pretty basic statement. Most people can infer that once there was a political attitude that could be described as McGovern Democrat and look at the context from there. I am very sorry this is difficult for you to figure it out but I hope this helps.

Except I can't help but think you know exactly what I meant when I said McGovern Democrat and I can't shake the feeling that there is a possibility, however remote, that you are being deliberately obtuse about this. But that is my problem; you don't need to worry about that.

I think Dems like Rashida Talib (Hamas-MI)

Poor Derec.

 

[Tigers!]

The last person to "lead" a country with the surname Johnson (Boris) didn't do a particularly splendid job.

 

[Ford]

So why again do you think it was a good idea for Dems to vote with Gaetz?

You’ve already been told. Because McCarthy’s word was shit. He reneged on deals and broke his word. There was no point in keeping him.

Actually, his crime was that he made a deal in the first place.

McCarthy was thrown out of the Speaker's chair because he made a deal with the Democrats to keep the government functioning for a couple months. That was his "mortal sin." The Poo-Flinging Monkey Caucus of the GOP wants a full-on long-term government shut down, and they will not settle for anything less. Johnson is there for no other reason. It matters not if he is a "good" or "bad" Speaker. He is there to crash and burn the federal government and then lead the MAGA contingent in dancing around the fire like a bunch of savages.

I suspect he won't bring a spending measure to the floor unless the Democrats agree to impeach Joe Biden, cut funding for Ukraine, give Putin the Medal of Freedom, and fund private jets for Thomas, Alito, and the other Supreme Court justices so they don't have to suffer the indignity of begging donors to catch rides to the next lavish vacation.

I'm only partially kidding.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The Poo-Flinging Monkey Caucus of the GOP wants a full-on long-term government shut down, and they will not settle for anything less. Johnson is there for no other reason. It matters not if he is a "good" or "bad" Speaker. He is there to crash and burn the federal government and then lead the MAGA contingent in dancing around the fire like a bunch of savages.

I think this is pretty accurate despite the hyperbole, and the same goes for their orange savior. It's revealing to observe such childish behavior among people who are supposed to act rationally and constructively. It's like they're attempting to have some kind of political group orgasm, it's the focus of their existence. Politics at its pubescent best.

 

[Elixir]

there hasn't been a crisis this bad since 1855. And that one was caused by the ill-fated compromise between free states and slave states that ultimately led to the Civil War:

In that’s case the “good guys” (anti slavery) had the advantage that the bad guys were vaguely confined to a geographical area (States) that could be overrun and bad guys forced to forego their evil ways.
In this go-round there is no such convenient way to target the bad guys.
It’s going to take decades at least, to quell the evil embodied by MAGA, and get MAGAts to understand the error of their ways. And that is the rosiest of outlooks. The other end of the spectrum has our nation looking a lot like Lewiston Maine, everywhere, every day, indefinitely. MAGATs run amok, and nobody to stop them.
Unfortunately I think that is the greater likelihood.

 

[SLD]

Mike Johnson said:

“Someone asked me today in the media, ‘People are curious, what does Mike Johnson think about any issue?’ I said, ‘Well, go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it. That’s my worldview.”

You guys need to look on the bright side. We finally got someone who will support stoning adulterers like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert.

 

[Gospel]

In this go-round there is no such convenient way to target the bad guys.

Speak for yourself. Us brown folk are easy to spot, and we're already statistically bound to the democratic party.

 

[Copernicus]

Mike Johnson said:

“Someone asked me today in the media, ‘People are curious, what does Mike Johnson think about any issue?’ I said, ‘Well, go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it. That’s my worldview.”

You guys need to look on the bright side. We finally got someone who will support stoning adulterers like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert.

They won't find the answer in the Bible, but they will find it on Truth Social.

 

[TomC]

Mike Johnson said:

“Someone asked me today in the media, ‘People are curious, what does Mike Johnson think about any issue?’ I said, ‘Well, go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it. That’s my worldview.”

You guys need to look on the bright side. We finally got someone who will support stoning adulterers like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert.

They won't find the answer in the Bible, but they will find it on Truth Social.

Perhaps someone will ask Johnson something as specific as "How does Matt 25:40 impact your views on immigration?"
Tom

 

[Gospel]

Perhaps someone will ask Johnson something as specific as "How does Matt 25:40 impact your views on immigration?"
Tom

He probably interprets Matthew 25:40 in a way that excludes immigrants, presumably because he does not regard them as the 'brothers and sisters' to whom Christ was referring.

 

[TomC]

Perhaps someone will ask Johnson something as specific as "How does Matt 25:40 impact your views on immigration?"
Tom

He probably interprets Matthew 25:40 in a way that excludes immigrants, presumably because he does not regard them as the 'brothers and sisters' to whom Christ was referring.

That's an advantage Christianity has. Moral and ethical ambiguity makes it easy to say and do almost anything you want and justify it with The Bible. Or just reinterpret an ancient word, translated into English, to mean exactly what you want it to mean.

Easy Peasy.

No surprise that morally ambiguous Americans choose Christianity over all other brands.
Tim

 

[Derec]

Perhaps someone will ask Johnson something as specific as "How does Matt 25:40 impact your views on immigration?"

Where in Matt. 24 is there a discourse about mass migration or abuse of the asylum system exactly?
Both religious right and religious left love to read their own political positions into the Bible.

 

[TomC]

Perhaps someone will ask Johnson something as specific as "How does Matt 25:40 impact your views on immigration?"

Where in Matt. 24 is there a discourse about mass migration or abuse of the asylum system exactly?
Both religious right and religious left love to read their own political positions into the Bible.

You must be a Christian.
God Himself is quoted in the verse I quoted.

I could have started my post with "God said...". But you're changing the subject to what U.S. Christians want to hear.

Good for your party, I understand that part. They want to identify as Christians while ignoring the stuff Jesus actually is quoted as saying when it doesn't suit them. That is so Christian.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

In this go-round there is no such convenient way to target the bad guys.

Speak for yourself. Us brown folk are easy to spot, and we're already statistically bound to the democratic party.

Hey, y’all might be a deciding factor in a lot of elections, but you’re still only a fraction of eligible targets of RW terrorists. Besides, you’re not a gay black woman, so stop complaining!

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Perhaps someone will ask Johnson something as specific as "How does Matt 25:40 impact your views on immigration?"
Tom

He probably interprets Matthew 25:40 in a way that excludes immigrants, presumably because he does not regard them as the 'brothers and sisters' to whom Christ was referring.

That's an advantage Christianity has. Moral and ethical ambiguity makes it easy to say and do almost anything you want and justify it with The Bible. Or just reinterpret an ancient word, translated into English, to mean exactly what you want it to mean.

Easy Peasy.

No surprise that morally ambiguous Americans choose Christianity over all other brands.
Tim

Hey Tim!

It's not just moral ambiguity which causes such problems. It's also contradictions. Did you know that if a system has just one contradiction, you can theoretically prove anything you want? In practice, you might encounter such things less than in theory, but the more and more contradictions you have in practice, you will observe people proving anything at all.

 

[ZiprHead]

Perhaps someone will ask Johnson something as specific as "How does Matt 25:40 impact your views on immigration?"

Where in Matt. 24 is there a discourse about mass migration or abuse of the asylum system exactly?
Both religious right and religious left love to read their own political positions into the Bible.

It's not there. It's in Leviticus, 19:33-34.

“When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

 

[bilby]

In that’s case the “good guys” (anti slavery) had the advantage that the bad guys were vaguely confined to a geographical area (States) that could be overrun and bad guys forced to forego their evil ways.

Indeed, the "American Civil War" wasn't, strictly, a civil war at all - it was a war between two neighbouring polities (albeit with sizeable populations from each resident in the other), and was called The Civil War by the victors as part of a (mostly successful) attempt to unite the two antebellum confederations into a single confederated super-state.

A true civil war doesn't have simple geographical boundaries between the belligerent factions; At every level of granularity, each geopolitical area contains a significant number of people who side against the majority, and are prepared to fight over their differences.

It's a great deal messier than what we saw in the 1860s.

 

[SLD]

Perhaps someone will ask Johnson something as specific as "How does Matt 25:40 impact your views on immigration?"
Tom

He probably interprets Matthew 25:40 in a way that excludes immigrants, presumably because he does not regard them as the 'brothers and sisters' to whom Christ was referring.

Unless they belong to my particular church, then they’re not “true“ Christians.