you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 70 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

Republicans, specifically Matt Gaetz, voted to remove McCarthy. It's not Democrat's responsibility to vote for Republicans.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -41 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Wrong. Gaetz started the voting process and Dems could have voted no to keep McCarthy.

    This particular comment of mine is not saying they should have.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    This is such a dishonest argument. You're nothing more then a troll.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    Can you explain to me why it's dishonest? I believe I'm just stating facts.

    Edit: What I mean is that I just corrected what OP wrote.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    It's dishonest because the Republicans both initiated the vote to remove McCarthy and had the numbers to reelect him. While you are correct democrats could have voted for McCarthy, I'm not really sure why they should/wpuld as he had already reneged on budgetary issues - https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4047677-democratic-leader-accuses-mccarthy-of-reneging-budget-deal-biden/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It’s dishonest because the Republicans both initiated the vote to remove McCarthy

    This is what I wrote

    and had the numbers to reelect him.

    This is in accordance with what I wrote: Dems could've reelected McCarthy.

    While you are correct democrats could have voted for McCarthy,

    Right? And

    I’m not really sure why they should/wpuld as he had already reneged on budgetary issues

    As I clarified in that comment, I was not saying they should.

    So, you're not disagreeing with me, are you? I therefore don't see why I'm criticized.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    The initial comment stated that it was the Republicans who voted McCarthy out. You called that statement wrong, that democrats voted him out. While you could argue semantics about the voting process, this historic event of ousting a speaker was controlled by the republican party. You're claim otherwise is dishonest (misleading) because the democrats acted the way the minority party always acts for speaker votes, meaning the Republicans knew what the outcome of the vote would be.

    It would be the same as saying democrats were the ones responsible for the initial election of McCarthy taking so long. While they didn't vote for him, that's not new or surprising, the surprising thing was Republicans inability to agree on a speaker (and thus making them the ones primarily at fault for failing to elect a speaker). To state otherwise is misleading because you are purposefully ignoring important details.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    This simply isn't true. The minority party, GOP or Dem have been known to support speakers of the opposite party when it suited their purposes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Look at any of the elections since 2001 (and probably well before). Not a single vote (at least that I saw) for the opposition from either party - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections

    This is why you're getting down voted, it's not about what politics it's that you aren't giving correct information.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago

    Nah, the downvotes are weird partisanship. The rest of the world knows that these parties sometimes cut deals on speakers.

    https://time.com/6320202/house-democrats-refused-save-kevin-mccarthy/

    On Tuesday, Democrats voted unanimously alongside Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida and seven other GOP members to remove McCarthy as Speaker. Despite talk over the weekend that some Democrats might cut a deal with McCarthy to save him, the Speaker ultimately refused to offer members of the opposition party any concessions, leaving Democrats united against him. In the narrowly divided House, only a handful of Republicans needed to join Democrats to create the majority needed to win the vote.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I understand what you say, but in this particular instance I'd like to live with the view that both semantics holds, due to the following criterion on my side.

    The perception by some newspaper I read outside the US was that Gaetz & co. was a small minority rightwing and everybody didn't want to play his childish game.

    You say it was predictable that Dems would vote against a Republican Speaker, and that indeed turned out to be the case. However, at the same time Dems essentially voted together with Gaetz and that was a bit surprising to me and that newspaper.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Ah, that last paragraph really helps explain your viewpoint. While you could argue that Dems voted "with" Gaetz against McCarthy, they certainly didn't vote for the same people for speaker. The real problem here is that while US, by law (as in laws officially recognize a two party system), is a two party system this situation is best understood from a 3 party perspective (Maga, Republicans, democrats).

    The Republicans need the Maga votes to form a coalition to elect a speaker, democrats would prefer their coalition gets to elect a speaker. When you understand all of the chaos is the republicans and Maga Republicans fighting over power in their "coalition" it's easier to understand everyone's behavior.

    With that context none of this has been surprising and many people were expecting a Maga republican to call the speaker vote at some point. It also reinforces the concept that this is more about republican infighting rather than anything going on with the democrats.

    Just like in parliamentary systems, one coalition isn't going to vote for the other without some concessions. Republicans weren't willing to concede anything to democrats and thus had to cater to the Maga Republicans (which is why most wouldn't put blame on democrats in this scenario).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It's an intellectually deficint argument. You know the gop called the vote and yet you want to act like this has anything to do with the democrats. The only reason you are pushing this "point" is to try to both sides this bullshit. You are doing nothing but attempting to push a narrative, a lazy one that no one is buying btw.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

    Wait, it's not like OP criticized Trump and I said "but Hillary".

    The OP's argument was wrong. It was not Mat Gaetz' "vote". Dems did choose to oust McCarthy.

    That's not "both side". I just corrected OP.

    Edit: the context is that Rs votes split exactly as expected. Dems knew the expectation and chose to oust McCarthy. That's a fact.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Edit: the context is that Rs votes split exactly as expected. Dems knew the expectation and chose to oust McCarthy. That’s a fact.

    This can NOT be serious. This argument is on the same level as "I didn't punch him, I was just swinging my arms wildly and they put their face in the path of my fist". Are you actually 5 years old, or just pretending?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    @Tar_alcaran @bedrooms

    Who has the majority in the House?

    The Republicans.

    End of story.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Not end of story. Rs against McCarthy didn't reach majority.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    @bedrooms because... come on. You're so close...πŸ˜†

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    If you don't explain, please understand that I'm not interested in what emoji you use.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    @bedrooms @LaFinlandia @mawkishdave @Djtecha @Tar_alcaran only the Republicans had the power to keep McCarthy

    They CHOSE not to exercise that power.

    That had to happen first, before you factor in the Dems. Without that choice, the Dems would be irrelevant.

    The Republicans MADE the Democrats relevant.

    You're choosing not to see that

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Majority rule made the Dems relevant. Since that's the entire structure of our democracy then maybe there's a bit more strategy to it than you're willing to observe.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    @fattylumpkin just reread my last reply. You're blaming the bullet, not the trigger finger.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Analogy isn't working for me. I've turned it off and back on again. Still nothing. πŸ˜†

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    As I wrote, Rs against McCarthy didn't reach majority.

    So, would you please take back that insult? Should I explain further what you don't understand here?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Let me flip your argument: US conservatives always knew there would be roughly 212 democratic votes against anything they do.

    Why would they, with 221 votes in their side, do something like this? If they didn't want this to happen, why would conservatives take this action?

    Why do democrats have to clean up conservative messes? Why can't they be adults and act responsibly?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Can you explain to me why my comment equated to "I didn’t punch him, I was just swinging my arms wildly and they put their face in the path of my fist"?

    I don't see how.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Conservatives started this by starting the vote, by having people like Gaetz in the party without doing anything about it. Conservatives are letting MAGA idiots into their party without issue. Conservatives then start a vote to get rid of someone democrats loathe, and they do exactly what's expected, enabled by a number of conservatives who could easily stop such a vote since they're the larger party.

    Then conservatives completely fail to clean up the mess they created. And now you're saying "why would democrats allow us to remove our own speaker? Don't they know everyone gets hurts when we're allowed to do the things we do?"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    I think you assume I'm pro-Republican. I'm actually not.

    We can agree that Republicans are the cause of this problem.

    I was just correcting OP's comment. I clarified that further in some of the comments here.

    In the original comment, I even wrote that I'm not suggesting Ds are to be blamed.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    I actually (mostly) agree with that. I know conservatives are bad. Can you finally explain to me why you equated my comment to "I didn't punch him..."?

    Wait, I think I'm too tired now as it's late in the night here. I'll reply tomorrow if I find the motivation.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yea, dishonest argument. Peace out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -43 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    I have to disagree with that, they had someone that was working with them and they threw it away. If the funding for Ukraine doesn't pass or the gov shuts down I see it as much as the Dems fault as the Repubs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    Everything McCarthy did, he did to please Republicans. Most Republicans privately don't want a shutdown, they know it's electoral poison for the GOP. Especially for Republicans in vulnerable districts, like Boebert (ever wonder why she voted to keep government open? Now you know).

    Likewise, apart from a few loudmouths Republicans generally want Ukraine aid - in fact McConnell insists on it - and that's the only reason McCarthy included it.

    McCarthy wasn't doing Democrats any favors. On the contrary, he backstabbed Democrats when he thought he could get away with it. No reason for Democrats to support someone like that.

    Johnson isn't deaf, Republicans will privately make the same demands to him that they did to McCarthy, he has to do what they want just like McCarthy did, and Democrats know it. Hopefully with less backstabbing this time.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -14 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    You have a valid point and these people just seem to miss it because they're too mired in partisanism to see it.

    I'm guessing the real explanation here is that the Dems think the Republicans having extremists in charge makes them look like fools and will ultimately be a political win even if it means dealing with this sort term political deadlock.

    What's better? Republicans you have to work with or a shot at a majority dem house next time?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago

    You have a valid point and these people just seem to miss it because they're too mired in partisanism to see it.

    Except they don't, because McCarthy didn't work with the dems. He quite literally went back on his word and backstabbed them days before he was ousted. Just because he was occasionally ever so slightly less of an obstructionist shitbag does not mean he was good.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago*

    It's not a valid point because McCarthy didn't work with Democrats on virtually any issue. He repeatedly told Dems to go fuck themselves. Dude was a moron who had no clue how to play politics and somehow thought he could get away with pissing everyone on both sides off. Complete coward.

    It's incredible to me that people like you think your opinions are valid when you clearly don't know shit about the issue at hand. It's telling that you pin all the blame on democrats when moderate Republicans could have just as easily cured for a Dem speaker.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -15 points 2 years ago

    I'm tired of the echo chamber the internet people throw to us. They can't even see a point if it has an ounce of anti-norm.

    Yeah, but if Ukraine end up unfunded that'd be too big a price.
    And I'm not even sure if Dems' naivety this time is working well for Dems.

  • source
  • parent