The chamber has been without a leader for weeks because of GOP infighting.

all 43 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 46 points 2 years ago (2 children)

At the rate it's going over there, the UN might have to send in peacekeepers fairly soon. And no, I didn't put this in the wrong topic.

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

    at this rate they're gonna run out of old white dudes

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 27 points 2 years ago (4 children)
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Republicans shitting all over the house so no work can get done.

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

    Is 9 too old for Matt Gaetz?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 24 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    How many of them voted to overturn the 2020 election?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago

    I believe 7 of the 9 did. There are 2 Republicans running who didn't try to overturn the 2020 election. Of course, the Freedom Caucus will oppose those candidates, keeping them from getting enough votes.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    It's probably easiest to just label them all Corrupt Old White Guy 1 through 9.

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

    Getting a real I Am Spartacus vibe from myself right now.

    I'm thinking of running for Speaker.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • There are no good options here. 7 of the 9 voted to not certify the 2020 election results.

    Tom Emmer, the MN rep who is emerging as a front-runner of the two that did vote to certify, is just as bad but more politically savvy, having repeatedly cast doubt in the election results and refused to acknowledge Biden even won after the election. He's a partisan willing to do and say anything for right-wing causes, but unlike the pure chaos members, can make calculated long-term decisions about political effects.

    The other person who voted to certify is Austin Scott, who the Internet seems to know nothing about. Maybe he's the best option here? The "not enough information to confirm verifiably terrible" option?

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    This week, on So You Think You Can Speak

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

    I think we should have them settle this with trial by combat.

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

    If only this were a world where a few Republicans might defect to Jeffries just to stick it to the far right end of the party that started all this. That would cause some real drama. Wouldn't be hard to stick the blame on the magats and spin it into a message of ending the madness and ineptitude we are watching unfold.

    But alas, this is not that world. Republicans would have to actually care about something other than owning the libs and dismantling the government for it to be that world.

    Although, still, bipartisan support of a candidate is the only reasonable way I see out of this that doesn't just fall apart again when Gaetz can't get his way. It's too bad the Republicans have painted themselves into a corner where ceding any ground to the even the most conservative Democrats is a complete non-starter.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    The rule should be if they don't get a person voted in then the democrats get to pick a republican to serve. The person chosen must serve.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    I think it should be the person with the highest number of votes, Democrat or Republican.

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

    Do you want spoiler candidates? Because that's how you get spoiler candidates

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

    This is the exact way Trump won the 2016 primary.

    Stuff the choices out so much that there’s 7 shit candidates and 2 almost-passable candidates. Then hope one of your 7 can outlast both of the other 2.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    I think I recognize two of them.

  • source
  • [+] -9 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    With this many running and no primary in the "republican secret conference ballot", someone that has the support of 26 representatives (out of 438) could win the gavel.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

    I assume you think it's FPtP rules but in this case an absolute majority (more than half) is needed, unless I'm missing something new? So more people running likely means less chance of a speaker being picked (and thus even more voting attempts).

    EDIT: Or do you mean that the secret ballot is plurality and that every republican will honor that result (even if they dislike who won) thus giving that pick the majority on the floor vote?

    Is the secret ballot how McCarthy won after 15 rounds of voting? Or are they going to work out a different deal now?

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

    Yes, the Republicans were passing around a " I will vote for whomever gets the most votes on the secret first ballot" pledge the other day. I was like: "So no primary, ranked choice, or multiple rounds of voting until a majority? Just the highest vote getter on the first round? What is the worst case on that?"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments