With no appropriations bill in sight, House GOP keeps kicking the can (otherwise government shutdown Oct 1st...Nov 17th...JanFeb...March...)

[Aldebaran]

They voted against Scalise.

Jordan is the latest to be the candidate. Since he's coming up short of votes, it's not the dreaded Freedom Caucus members voting against him.

 

[wing2000]

Jordan is the latest to be the candidate. Since he's coming up short of votes, it's not the dreaded Freedom Caucus members voting against him.

I suggest you re-read my post as I never said they did.

 

[Aldebaran]

I suggest you re-read my post as I never said they did.

Then who is the "burn it all down" contingent you referenced in post #229?

 

[wing2000]

Then who is the "burn it all down" contingent you referenced in post #229?

That's how it has worked historically. The Conference meets in private, hash out who will be leader, take a vote. The winner is then supported by the entire conference on the House Floor vote.

In this case that was Scalise. The burn-it-all-down contigent ignored tradition and history.

I was referring to the House vote for Scalise .

 

[Aldebaran]

I was referring to the House vote for Scalise .

A House vote doesn't burn anything down, no matter the vote. A vote isn't a "contingent" either. Dictionary definition: "a group of people united by some common feature, forming part of a larger group."

So who is the contingent you were referring to as "burn it all down"?

 

[MotoToTheMax]

Anyway, who do you believe would be a Republican that would be "reasonable" for a democrat to vote for in order to avoid a govt. shutdown (which they'd blame on Republicans no matter what)?

Somebody not named Jim Jordan. Or anybody from the Freedom Caucus.

 

[Aldebaran]

Somebody not named Jim Jordan. Or anybody from the Freedom Caucus.

Did any dems vote for Steve Scalise? I don't see his name as being in the Freedom Caucus:

Freedom Caucus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[MotoToTheMax]

Did any dems vote for Steve Scalise? I don't see his name as being in the Freedom Caucus:

Freedom Caucus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Doesn't look like it to me. Welp, looks like its up to the Republicans to fix the mess they created. Not the Democrats problem the other side is a mess. Do try to keep gaslighting the rest of us that somehow it's the Democrats fault for a lack of Speaker.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Did any dems vote for Steve Scalise?

There was no House vote. Scalise dropped out because it was clear to him that he wasn't going to get the votes from the Republicans in one contingent.

 

[Aldebaran]

Doesn't look like it to me. Welp, looks like its up to the Republicans to fix the mess they created. Not the Democrats problem the other side is a mess. Do try to keep gaslighting the rest of us that somehow it's the Democrats fault that a lack of Speaker.

LOL
I've simply been trying to get an answer as to why the democrats in the house can't even get a small number of their members to cross over (you know, in a bi-partisan gesture which they claim is sooooooo important) and vote for a speaker so we can actually move ahead, as they claim to want to.

I guess no answer is forthcoming as to why House democrats keep voting to obstruct, then shift blame to Republicans.

 

[Aldebaran]

There was no House vote. Scalise dropped out because it was clear to him that he wasn't going to get the votes from the Republicans in one contingent.

And no chance of getting dem votes either (seeing the pattern of their votes so far), even though he's not part of the Freedom Caucus.

 

[MotoToTheMax]

There was no House vote. Scalise dropped out because it was clear to him that he wasn't going to get the votes from the Republicans in one contingent.

I think he means the floor vote today. As if somehow some Democrats would vote for Scalise instead of Jeffries. Since all Democrats voted for Jeffries and not a single Republican, that magically makes them at fault for a lack of Speaker. It makes sense if you just came out from under a rock for 50 years.

 

[MotoToTheMax]

LOL
I've simply been trying to get an answer as to why the democrats in the house can't even get a small number of their members to cross over (you know, in a bi-partisan gesture which they claim is sooooooo important) and vote for a speaker so we can actually move ahead, as they claim to want to.

I guess no answer is forthcoming as to why House democrats keep voting to obstruct, then shift blame to Republicans.

Why can't any Republicans cross over? They only need 6 to do it. Seems easier than getting 18 Republicans to vote for their own party apparently.

 

[Aldebaran]

I think he means the floor vote today. As if somehow some Democrats would vote for Scalise instead of Jeffries. Since all Democrats voted for Jeffries and not a single Republican, that magically makes them at fault for a lack of Speaker. It makes sense if you just came out from under a rock for 50 years.

It also makes sense if you've noticed the way Congressional democrats have voted for the past 50 years.

 

[Aldebaran]

Why can't any Republicans cross over? They only need 6 to do it. Seems easier than getting 18 Republicans to vote for their own party apparently.

Now you're dodging the question.
It's ok though. The answer has been obvious from the beginning.

 

[MotoToTheMax]

Now you're dodging the question.
It's ok though. The answer has been obvious from the beginning.

Go on then. Show us how it's done. Be better than the rest of us "dodging."
Why can't any Republicans cross over? They only need 6 to do it. Seems easier than getting 18 Republicans to vote for their own party apparently.

 

[Aldebaran]

Go on then. Show us how it's done. Be better than the rest of us "dodging."
Why can't any Republicans cross over? They only need 6 to do it. Seems easier than getting 18 Republicans to vote for their own party apparently.

The Republicans aren't the ones complaining about a looming government shutdown.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

vote for a speaker so we can actually move ahead, as they claim to want to.

And here we get to the crux of the problem: Republicans appear to be willing to burn it all down let the government shut down rather than compromise in order to entice some Democrats to back their guy. A functional government should be a baseline desire of both parties, not the "reward" that one side gets in exchange for their concessions.

Edited because apparently some people are incapable of understanding metaphor.

 

[Aldebaran]

And here we get to the crux of the problem: Republicans appear to be willing to burn it all down rather than compromise in order to entice some Democrats to back their guy. A functional government should be a baseline desire of both parties, not the "reward" that one side gets in exchange for their concessions.

Nothing would burn down.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Nothing would burn down.

I'm sure you knew what I meant, but just in case, I edited my post to clarify. Now, would you care to comment on the actual substance rather than making snarky comments?