Meet the 'Squad" members of the Republican Party

[JSRG]

And on that note, how many bills did republicans vote for that dems or Biden put forward?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "Republicans voted for". How many Republicans? Any Republican, or do you want a majority of Republicans? Or does it have to be unanimous? I'm not sure how strict your criteria is. "Majority of Republicans" would make the most sense to me, though.

In any event, here's a list of bills passed in the last congress:

List of acts of the 117th United States Congress - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There's over 100 so I'm not going to go through all of them, but there's obviously plenty that were introduced by a Democrat and passed with considerable bipartisan support. The first one listed, for example, was introduced by a Democrat and passed 326-78 (see https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/335/actions), which of course shows a majority of Republicans supported it.

Of course, most of these bills are relatively minor things (a whole lot of these, for example, are just giving names to post offices). Thus for a lot of them you'll get near unanimous or unanimous because there's not much to dispute.

If you're asking specifically about major legislation, not so sure about that--especially with the question of what exactly constitutes major.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Speaking of the Squad, I'm enjoying all this almost as much as AOC is. It's starting to get boring, and there's work to be done, but just for the moment...

 

[essentialsaltes]

Four Republican lawmakers voted against a motion to adjourn the House until Thursday. If the House had not adjourned, members would have held another vote for speaker.

• Rep. Andy Biggs
• Rep. Lauren Boebert
• Rep. Matt Gaetz
• Rep.-elect Eli Crane

Presumably they want McCarthy's embarrassment to proceed more efficiently.

 

[mark46]

Democrats’ Sherman Floats Possible Deal to Make McCarthy Speaker

(Bloomberg) -- House Democrat Brad Sherman floated a potential deal Wednesday that would trade Democratic votes to make beleaguered Republican Kevin McCarthy the speaker of the House in return for rules aimed at preventing a US government shutdown or a debt limit crisis.Most Read from...

www.yahoo.com

This is what matters to Democrats and Senate Republicans.

As for the rest, pass the popcorn. Nothing else will get done.

 

[FireDragon76]

It's nihilistic and ultimately futile, but then again I think the chaos and damage it causes is part of the point.

 

[Fantine]

I have heard the media describe them as the Q'Anon Caucus.

 

[wing2000]

...why not motion to have the 20 expelled from the Congress?
[..alas, the congress would have to be sworn in first]

 

[Desk trauma]

...why not motion to have the 20 expelled from the Congress?
[..alas, the congress would have to be sworn in first]

Should McCarthy maneuver around them to win the vote for speaker I am seeing their first act being a call for a vote of no confidence.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I have heard the media describe them as the Q'Anon Caucus.

I've been happy to call them the "Never Kevin" faction, but some of their GOP brethren are using stronger language.

Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) says he’s heard colleagues privately tag the 19 Republicans who repeatedly voted against Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) for speaker the “Taliban 19” — a nickname Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) called “hurtful” and “false,” though he added “I too am prepared for an extended battle I will ultimately win.”

 

[Pommer]

...why not motion to have the 20 expelled from the Congress?
[..alas, the congress would have to be sworn in first]

That would require a rule-change, (that, in itself, would require a Speaker to be seated).

 

[wing2000]

That would require a rule-change, (that, in itself, would require a Speaker to be seated).

Article I, section 5 of the United States Constitution provides that "Each House [of Congress] may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member.

It's probably premature to suggest such a move now...but if certain members keep negotiating in bad faith in the coming days, I suspect 2/3 of the members will be ready for some but kicking....

Since such a motion relates directly to the election of the Speaker, I think an argument could be made that seating the Speaker/members is not required. But that's just my laymen's opinion.....

 

[JacksBratt]

What you are seeing is 20 true republicans who are holding out against a group of democrats and house representatives that don't understand how important this is.

The vote is set at 218 for a reason. It has to be 218 that agree with the choice.

You cannot just get rid of those that don't agree with what you want. There is purpose in that.
Talk about destroying democracy... wow.

Why is it that people want to use force to get what they want... This system is designed for this very reason.

McCarthy stood against may republican reps in the midterms and for many democrat agenda issues. he is a Republican in Name only.

He does what he does for 1/ Himself and 2/ the agenda of the establishment...

Not for the people. You are hurting economically, job wise, food wise, safety wise, and freedom wise.. due to the establishment.

These 20 want change. They want a speaker that doesn't KowTow to the establishment.

It is their right to vote their conscience.

This is much better than the alternative of all the reps just doing what they are told and voting for someone that has made a "deal"...who, in the end... would not help fix the problems.

 

[wing2000]

What you are seeing is 20 true republicans who are holding out against a group of democrats and house representatives that don't understand how important this is.

What we are seeing are certain members asserting that their demands are more important than the 400+ other members of Congress...

 

[Yttrium]

What you are seeing is 20 true republicans who are holding out against a group of democrats and house representatives that don't understand how important this is.

The vote is set at 218 for a reason. It has to be 218 that agree with the choice.

Not necessarily. That number can drop if members vote "present". If a different 20 Republicans get fed up and vote "present", then a Democrat becomes speaker. Playing chicken can always result in a bad crash.

 

[JacksBratt]

What we are seeing are certain members asserting that their demands are more important than the 400+ other members of Congress...

Should they vote against their views? They were elected by their constituents based on these views.

How would you feel if the house rep that you voted for, based on their standing on issues that are important to you... voted opposite to what they told you that they would do? We have names for that type of behavior.

The way this works.. is that each individual gets a vote. If the nominee doesn't get 218 votes... then they were not elected as the procedure requires.

To just take these 20 and nullify their voice.... is contrary to democracy.

Seems like a lot of people shout for democracy and freedom.. unless it's a view different than theirs.

The problem with democracy is that, in some cases, the majority is wrong.

If you have 10 people in a group, lost in the woods... a democratic vote on which way to go in order to get out of the woods... could get you deeper into the woods.

These people think that Kevin McCarthy is the wrong person for speaker... Their views are valid.

 

[JacksBratt]

Not necessarily. That number can drop if members vote "present". If a different 20 Republicans get fed up and vote "present", then a Democrat becomes speaker. Playing chicken can always result in a bad crash.

The process will work it's way out.
Either way... Pelosi was in that position in accordance to God's grand plan.
Even this procedure of selection is affecting the way people think..
God's plan will prevail and the US will have the speaker that will fulfill that plan.. consciously or not.
The selection process was designed for a democratic selection.
IMO, it's not good to have someone given the seat by everyone just going along to get along.

 

[Pommer]

What you are seeing is 20 true republicans who are holding out against a group of democrats and house representatives that don't understand how important this is.

It’s the Democrats’ fault that the Republicans can’t get it together?

 

[essentialsaltes]

How would you feel if the house rep that you voted for, based on their standing on issues that are important to you... voted opposite to what they told you that they would do?

I doubt any of these Republicans publicly promised to not support the Republican House Leader in his bid for Speaker.

(Otherwise, I agree with you that these rep-elects are free to vote as they like.)

 

[Nithavela]

It’s the Democrats’ fault that the Republicans can’t get it together?

Maybe he's trying to say that the Republicans who vote for McCarthy are democrats.

 

[wing2000]

These people think that Kevin McCarthy is the wrong person for speaker... Their views are valid.

Sure, their views are as valid as the other 400+ representatives. I would prefer to see the process work itself out too...but in a reasonable amount of time (Republicans have been in discussions since the election). However, all members who serve in the House have a responsibility to respect the office they serve and recognize they will not get 100% of what they want. If 90 percent of the Republican conference disagrees with them, what gives them the right to say no and keep the House in suspension until they get their way? What if all members of Congress take this approach?