comment
stringlengths 1
9.86k
| context
listlengths 0
530
|
|---|---|
>
Yeah it’s a pretty open secret at this point
|
[
"Feinstein is turning 90 this year. And unlike the right's talking points about Biden, rumors of serious cognitive decline for her are much more concrete and concerning. I really hope she has the grace to retire and enjoy her sunset years instead of muddying her legacy with the mess another term would likely turn into. Because here's the thing, if she runs, she's probably still going to win, and that's not the best thing for her or for this country.",
">\n\nIf it’s a primary with Katie Porter, I won’t vote for Feinstein.",
">\n\nWhy would you vote for Feinstein at this age in any primary? Katie Porter or not?",
">\n\nWe’re gonna need a bigger whiteboard!",
">\n\nHer districted got remapped this cycle and she basically had to introduce herself all over again to voters, and still won in a tough environment.\nShe’d be amazing in the Senate, and smart of her to jump out early and get ahead of other potential candidates. Now we just have to hope Feinstein’s massive ego doesn’t cause her to mount an absurd reelection bid in ‘24",
">\n\nFeinstein is 89, and don't members of the Senate whisper that cognitively she's in serious decline? I honestly don't get any senator that is so old they don't just retire and enjoy their remaining days on Earth relaxing.",
">\n\nThere’s no whispering, people in her office have talked about it with the press."
] |
>
She’s got my vote.
|
[
"Feinstein is turning 90 this year. And unlike the right's talking points about Biden, rumors of serious cognitive decline for her are much more concrete and concerning. I really hope she has the grace to retire and enjoy her sunset years instead of muddying her legacy with the mess another term would likely turn into. Because here's the thing, if she runs, she's probably still going to win, and that's not the best thing for her or for this country.",
">\n\nIf it’s a primary with Katie Porter, I won’t vote for Feinstein.",
">\n\nWhy would you vote for Feinstein at this age in any primary? Katie Porter or not?",
">\n\nWe’re gonna need a bigger whiteboard!",
">\n\nHer districted got remapped this cycle and she basically had to introduce herself all over again to voters, and still won in a tough environment.\nShe’d be amazing in the Senate, and smart of her to jump out early and get ahead of other potential candidates. Now we just have to hope Feinstein’s massive ego doesn’t cause her to mount an absurd reelection bid in ‘24",
">\n\nFeinstein is 89, and don't members of the Senate whisper that cognitively she's in serious decline? I honestly don't get any senator that is so old they don't just retire and enjoy their remaining days on Earth relaxing.",
">\n\nThere’s no whispering, people in her office have talked about it with the press.",
">\n\nYeah it’s a pretty open secret at this point"
] |
>
The only good thing to come out of OC, Katie Porter!!!
|
[
"Feinstein is turning 90 this year. And unlike the right's talking points about Biden, rumors of serious cognitive decline for her are much more concrete and concerning. I really hope she has the grace to retire and enjoy her sunset years instead of muddying her legacy with the mess another term would likely turn into. Because here's the thing, if she runs, she's probably still going to win, and that's not the best thing for her or for this country.",
">\n\nIf it’s a primary with Katie Porter, I won’t vote for Feinstein.",
">\n\nWhy would you vote for Feinstein at this age in any primary? Katie Porter or not?",
">\n\nWe’re gonna need a bigger whiteboard!",
">\n\nHer districted got remapped this cycle and she basically had to introduce herself all over again to voters, and still won in a tough environment.\nShe’d be amazing in the Senate, and smart of her to jump out early and get ahead of other potential candidates. Now we just have to hope Feinstein’s massive ego doesn’t cause her to mount an absurd reelection bid in ‘24",
">\n\nFeinstein is 89, and don't members of the Senate whisper that cognitively she's in serious decline? I honestly don't get any senator that is so old they don't just retire and enjoy their remaining days on Earth relaxing.",
">\n\nThere’s no whispering, people in her office have talked about it with the press.",
">\n\nYeah it’s a pretty open secret at this point",
">\n\nShe’s got my vote."
] |
>
Several excellent candidates will be in the running for this seat. It will be quite interesting.
|
[
"Feinstein is turning 90 this year. And unlike the right's talking points about Biden, rumors of serious cognitive decline for her are much more concrete and concerning. I really hope she has the grace to retire and enjoy her sunset years instead of muddying her legacy with the mess another term would likely turn into. Because here's the thing, if she runs, she's probably still going to win, and that's not the best thing for her or for this country.",
">\n\nIf it’s a primary with Katie Porter, I won’t vote for Feinstein.",
">\n\nWhy would you vote for Feinstein at this age in any primary? Katie Porter or not?",
">\n\nWe’re gonna need a bigger whiteboard!",
">\n\nHer districted got remapped this cycle and she basically had to introduce herself all over again to voters, and still won in a tough environment.\nShe’d be amazing in the Senate, and smart of her to jump out early and get ahead of other potential candidates. Now we just have to hope Feinstein’s massive ego doesn’t cause her to mount an absurd reelection bid in ‘24",
">\n\nFeinstein is 89, and don't members of the Senate whisper that cognitively she's in serious decline? I honestly don't get any senator that is so old they don't just retire and enjoy their remaining days on Earth relaxing.",
">\n\nThere’s no whispering, people in her office have talked about it with the press.",
">\n\nYeah it’s a pretty open secret at this point",
">\n\nShe’s got my vote.",
">\n\nThe only good thing to come out of OC, Katie Porter!!!"
] |
>
I wholeheartedly agree, whether it’s Schiff or Porter you can’t go wrong either way.
|
[
"Feinstein is turning 90 this year. And unlike the right's talking points about Biden, rumors of serious cognitive decline for her are much more concrete and concerning. I really hope she has the grace to retire and enjoy her sunset years instead of muddying her legacy with the mess another term would likely turn into. Because here's the thing, if she runs, she's probably still going to win, and that's not the best thing for her or for this country.",
">\n\nIf it’s a primary with Katie Porter, I won’t vote for Feinstein.",
">\n\nWhy would you vote for Feinstein at this age in any primary? Katie Porter or not?",
">\n\nWe’re gonna need a bigger whiteboard!",
">\n\nHer districted got remapped this cycle and she basically had to introduce herself all over again to voters, and still won in a tough environment.\nShe’d be amazing in the Senate, and smart of her to jump out early and get ahead of other potential candidates. Now we just have to hope Feinstein’s massive ego doesn’t cause her to mount an absurd reelection bid in ‘24",
">\n\nFeinstein is 89, and don't members of the Senate whisper that cognitively she's in serious decline? I honestly don't get any senator that is so old they don't just retire and enjoy their remaining days on Earth relaxing.",
">\n\nThere’s no whispering, people in her office have talked about it with the press.",
">\n\nYeah it’s a pretty open secret at this point",
">\n\nShe’s got my vote.",
">\n\nThe only good thing to come out of OC, Katie Porter!!!",
">\n\nSeveral excellent candidates will be in the running for this seat. It will be quite interesting."
] |
>
She’s one of the few democrats who capable of calling out bullshit effectively. Hope she wins
|
[
"Feinstein is turning 90 this year. And unlike the right's talking points about Biden, rumors of serious cognitive decline for her are much more concrete and concerning. I really hope she has the grace to retire and enjoy her sunset years instead of muddying her legacy with the mess another term would likely turn into. Because here's the thing, if she runs, she's probably still going to win, and that's not the best thing for her or for this country.",
">\n\nIf it’s a primary with Katie Porter, I won’t vote for Feinstein.",
">\n\nWhy would you vote for Feinstein at this age in any primary? Katie Porter or not?",
">\n\nWe’re gonna need a bigger whiteboard!",
">\n\nHer districted got remapped this cycle and she basically had to introduce herself all over again to voters, and still won in a tough environment.\nShe’d be amazing in the Senate, and smart of her to jump out early and get ahead of other potential candidates. Now we just have to hope Feinstein’s massive ego doesn’t cause her to mount an absurd reelection bid in ‘24",
">\n\nFeinstein is 89, and don't members of the Senate whisper that cognitively she's in serious decline? I honestly don't get any senator that is so old they don't just retire and enjoy their remaining days on Earth relaxing.",
">\n\nThere’s no whispering, people in her office have talked about it with the press.",
">\n\nYeah it’s a pretty open secret at this point",
">\n\nShe’s got my vote.",
">\n\nThe only good thing to come out of OC, Katie Porter!!!",
">\n\nSeveral excellent candidates will be in the running for this seat. It will be quite interesting.",
">\n\nI wholeheartedly agree, whether it’s Schiff or Porter you can’t go wrong either way."
] |
>
Let's fuckin go!!!
|
[
"Feinstein is turning 90 this year. And unlike the right's talking points about Biden, rumors of serious cognitive decline for her are much more concrete and concerning. I really hope she has the grace to retire and enjoy her sunset years instead of muddying her legacy with the mess another term would likely turn into. Because here's the thing, if she runs, she's probably still going to win, and that's not the best thing for her or for this country.",
">\n\nIf it’s a primary with Katie Porter, I won’t vote for Feinstein.",
">\n\nWhy would you vote for Feinstein at this age in any primary? Katie Porter or not?",
">\n\nWe’re gonna need a bigger whiteboard!",
">\n\nHer districted got remapped this cycle and she basically had to introduce herself all over again to voters, and still won in a tough environment.\nShe’d be amazing in the Senate, and smart of her to jump out early and get ahead of other potential candidates. Now we just have to hope Feinstein’s massive ego doesn’t cause her to mount an absurd reelection bid in ‘24",
">\n\nFeinstein is 89, and don't members of the Senate whisper that cognitively she's in serious decline? I honestly don't get any senator that is so old they don't just retire and enjoy their remaining days on Earth relaxing.",
">\n\nThere’s no whispering, people in her office have talked about it with the press.",
">\n\nYeah it’s a pretty open secret at this point",
">\n\nShe’s got my vote.",
">\n\nThe only good thing to come out of OC, Katie Porter!!!",
">\n\nSeveral excellent candidates will be in the running for this seat. It will be quite interesting.",
">\n\nI wholeheartedly agree, whether it’s Schiff or Porter you can’t go wrong either way.",
">\n\nShe’s one of the few democrats who capable of calling out bullshit effectively. Hope she wins"
] |
>
This is awesome!
The question is will Schiff jump in.
|
[
"Feinstein is turning 90 this year. And unlike the right's talking points about Biden, rumors of serious cognitive decline for her are much more concrete and concerning. I really hope she has the grace to retire and enjoy her sunset years instead of muddying her legacy with the mess another term would likely turn into. Because here's the thing, if she runs, she's probably still going to win, and that's not the best thing for her or for this country.",
">\n\nIf it’s a primary with Katie Porter, I won’t vote for Feinstein.",
">\n\nWhy would you vote for Feinstein at this age in any primary? Katie Porter or not?",
">\n\nWe’re gonna need a bigger whiteboard!",
">\n\nHer districted got remapped this cycle and she basically had to introduce herself all over again to voters, and still won in a tough environment.\nShe’d be amazing in the Senate, and smart of her to jump out early and get ahead of other potential candidates. Now we just have to hope Feinstein’s massive ego doesn’t cause her to mount an absurd reelection bid in ‘24",
">\n\nFeinstein is 89, and don't members of the Senate whisper that cognitively she's in serious decline? I honestly don't get any senator that is so old they don't just retire and enjoy their remaining days on Earth relaxing.",
">\n\nThere’s no whispering, people in her office have talked about it with the press.",
">\n\nYeah it’s a pretty open secret at this point",
">\n\nShe’s got my vote.",
">\n\nThe only good thing to come out of OC, Katie Porter!!!",
">\n\nSeveral excellent candidates will be in the running for this seat. It will be quite interesting.",
">\n\nI wholeheartedly agree, whether it’s Schiff or Porter you can’t go wrong either way.",
">\n\nShe’s one of the few democrats who capable of calling out bullshit effectively. Hope she wins",
">\n\nLet's fuckin go!!!"
] |
>
Probably. It's time for him and he already said he wanted to couple months ago.
|
[
"Feinstein is turning 90 this year. And unlike the right's talking points about Biden, rumors of serious cognitive decline for her are much more concrete and concerning. I really hope she has the grace to retire and enjoy her sunset years instead of muddying her legacy with the mess another term would likely turn into. Because here's the thing, if she runs, she's probably still going to win, and that's not the best thing for her or for this country.",
">\n\nIf it’s a primary with Katie Porter, I won’t vote for Feinstein.",
">\n\nWhy would you vote for Feinstein at this age in any primary? Katie Porter or not?",
">\n\nWe’re gonna need a bigger whiteboard!",
">\n\nHer districted got remapped this cycle and she basically had to introduce herself all over again to voters, and still won in a tough environment.\nShe’d be amazing in the Senate, and smart of her to jump out early and get ahead of other potential candidates. Now we just have to hope Feinstein’s massive ego doesn’t cause her to mount an absurd reelection bid in ‘24",
">\n\nFeinstein is 89, and don't members of the Senate whisper that cognitively she's in serious decline? I honestly don't get any senator that is so old they don't just retire and enjoy their remaining days on Earth relaxing.",
">\n\nThere’s no whispering, people in her office have talked about it with the press.",
">\n\nYeah it’s a pretty open secret at this point",
">\n\nShe’s got my vote.",
">\n\nThe only good thing to come out of OC, Katie Porter!!!",
">\n\nSeveral excellent candidates will be in the running for this seat. It will be quite interesting.",
">\n\nI wholeheartedly agree, whether it’s Schiff or Porter you can’t go wrong either way.",
">\n\nShe’s one of the few democrats who capable of calling out bullshit effectively. Hope she wins",
">\n\nLet's fuckin go!!!",
">\n\nThis is awesome! \nThe question is will Schiff jump in."
] |
>
Schiff has the charisma of a wet paper towel.
|
[
"Feinstein is turning 90 this year. And unlike the right's talking points about Biden, rumors of serious cognitive decline for her are much more concrete and concerning. I really hope she has the grace to retire and enjoy her sunset years instead of muddying her legacy with the mess another term would likely turn into. Because here's the thing, if she runs, she's probably still going to win, and that's not the best thing for her or for this country.",
">\n\nIf it’s a primary with Katie Porter, I won’t vote for Feinstein.",
">\n\nWhy would you vote for Feinstein at this age in any primary? Katie Porter or not?",
">\n\nWe’re gonna need a bigger whiteboard!",
">\n\nHer districted got remapped this cycle and she basically had to introduce herself all over again to voters, and still won in a tough environment.\nShe’d be amazing in the Senate, and smart of her to jump out early and get ahead of other potential candidates. Now we just have to hope Feinstein’s massive ego doesn’t cause her to mount an absurd reelection bid in ‘24",
">\n\nFeinstein is 89, and don't members of the Senate whisper that cognitively she's in serious decline? I honestly don't get any senator that is so old they don't just retire and enjoy their remaining days on Earth relaxing.",
">\n\nThere’s no whispering, people in her office have talked about it with the press.",
">\n\nYeah it’s a pretty open secret at this point",
">\n\nShe’s got my vote.",
">\n\nThe only good thing to come out of OC, Katie Porter!!!",
">\n\nSeveral excellent candidates will be in the running for this seat. It will be quite interesting.",
">\n\nI wholeheartedly agree, whether it’s Schiff or Porter you can’t go wrong either way.",
">\n\nShe’s one of the few democrats who capable of calling out bullshit effectively. Hope she wins",
">\n\nLet's fuckin go!!!",
">\n\nThis is awesome! \nThe question is will Schiff jump in.",
">\n\nProbably. It's time for him and he already said he wanted to couple months ago."
] |
>
True, but charisma is overrated for a Senate post. It's not the place for excitement.
|
[
"Feinstein is turning 90 this year. And unlike the right's talking points about Biden, rumors of serious cognitive decline for her are much more concrete and concerning. I really hope she has the grace to retire and enjoy her sunset years instead of muddying her legacy with the mess another term would likely turn into. Because here's the thing, if she runs, she's probably still going to win, and that's not the best thing for her or for this country.",
">\n\nIf it’s a primary with Katie Porter, I won’t vote for Feinstein.",
">\n\nWhy would you vote for Feinstein at this age in any primary? Katie Porter or not?",
">\n\nWe’re gonna need a bigger whiteboard!",
">\n\nHer districted got remapped this cycle and she basically had to introduce herself all over again to voters, and still won in a tough environment.\nShe’d be amazing in the Senate, and smart of her to jump out early and get ahead of other potential candidates. Now we just have to hope Feinstein’s massive ego doesn’t cause her to mount an absurd reelection bid in ‘24",
">\n\nFeinstein is 89, and don't members of the Senate whisper that cognitively she's in serious decline? I honestly don't get any senator that is so old they don't just retire and enjoy their remaining days on Earth relaxing.",
">\n\nThere’s no whispering, people in her office have talked about it with the press.",
">\n\nYeah it’s a pretty open secret at this point",
">\n\nShe’s got my vote.",
">\n\nThe only good thing to come out of OC, Katie Porter!!!",
">\n\nSeveral excellent candidates will be in the running for this seat. It will be quite interesting.",
">\n\nI wholeheartedly agree, whether it’s Schiff or Porter you can’t go wrong either way.",
">\n\nShe’s one of the few democrats who capable of calling out bullshit effectively. Hope she wins",
">\n\nLet's fuckin go!!!",
">\n\nThis is awesome! \nThe question is will Schiff jump in.",
">\n\nProbably. It's time for him and he already said he wanted to couple months ago.",
">\n\nSchiff has the charisma of a wet paper towel."
] |
>
I’m not unhappy about this.
|
[
"Feinstein is turning 90 this year. And unlike the right's talking points about Biden, rumors of serious cognitive decline for her are much more concrete and concerning. I really hope she has the grace to retire and enjoy her sunset years instead of muddying her legacy with the mess another term would likely turn into. Because here's the thing, if she runs, she's probably still going to win, and that's not the best thing for her or for this country.",
">\n\nIf it’s a primary with Katie Porter, I won’t vote for Feinstein.",
">\n\nWhy would you vote for Feinstein at this age in any primary? Katie Porter or not?",
">\n\nWe’re gonna need a bigger whiteboard!",
">\n\nHer districted got remapped this cycle and she basically had to introduce herself all over again to voters, and still won in a tough environment.\nShe’d be amazing in the Senate, and smart of her to jump out early and get ahead of other potential candidates. Now we just have to hope Feinstein’s massive ego doesn’t cause her to mount an absurd reelection bid in ‘24",
">\n\nFeinstein is 89, and don't members of the Senate whisper that cognitively she's in serious decline? I honestly don't get any senator that is so old they don't just retire and enjoy their remaining days on Earth relaxing.",
">\n\nThere’s no whispering, people in her office have talked about it with the press.",
">\n\nYeah it’s a pretty open secret at this point",
">\n\nShe’s got my vote.",
">\n\nThe only good thing to come out of OC, Katie Porter!!!",
">\n\nSeveral excellent candidates will be in the running for this seat. It will be quite interesting.",
">\n\nI wholeheartedly agree, whether it’s Schiff or Porter you can’t go wrong either way.",
">\n\nShe’s one of the few democrats who capable of calling out bullshit effectively. Hope she wins",
">\n\nLet's fuckin go!!!",
">\n\nThis is awesome! \nThe question is will Schiff jump in.",
">\n\nProbably. It's time for him and he already said he wanted to couple months ago.",
">\n\nSchiff has the charisma of a wet paper towel.",
">\n\nTrue, but charisma is overrated for a Senate post. It's not the place for excitement."
] |
>
Shitty LA Times needs to look in the mirror at how they gave Feinstein a free pass. Their only interview with her this decade was unfreezing George Skelton to have him sit down with her and her staff (no pictures, no video).
Even through his soft-ball questions and friendly edits, it was obvious that her staff is manipulating her like 'Weekend at Bernies'.
Looking back its a good thing Kevin De Leon is such a horrible politician he couldn't even beat that zombie last election; now that the Times finally discovered that he and some of the Latinos controlling LA City Council are racist against black people.
Katie's my Rep now, and hopefully we can replace her with someone good. She'll be a great Senator, a Gen-X Elizabeth Warren who must have learned from Barbara Boxer.
|
[
"Feinstein is turning 90 this year. And unlike the right's talking points about Biden, rumors of serious cognitive decline for her are much more concrete and concerning. I really hope she has the grace to retire and enjoy her sunset years instead of muddying her legacy with the mess another term would likely turn into. Because here's the thing, if she runs, she's probably still going to win, and that's not the best thing for her or for this country.",
">\n\nIf it’s a primary with Katie Porter, I won’t vote for Feinstein.",
">\n\nWhy would you vote for Feinstein at this age in any primary? Katie Porter or not?",
">\n\nWe’re gonna need a bigger whiteboard!",
">\n\nHer districted got remapped this cycle and she basically had to introduce herself all over again to voters, and still won in a tough environment.\nShe’d be amazing in the Senate, and smart of her to jump out early and get ahead of other potential candidates. Now we just have to hope Feinstein’s massive ego doesn’t cause her to mount an absurd reelection bid in ‘24",
">\n\nFeinstein is 89, and don't members of the Senate whisper that cognitively she's in serious decline? I honestly don't get any senator that is so old they don't just retire and enjoy their remaining days on Earth relaxing.",
">\n\nThere’s no whispering, people in her office have talked about it with the press.",
">\n\nYeah it’s a pretty open secret at this point",
">\n\nShe’s got my vote.",
">\n\nThe only good thing to come out of OC, Katie Porter!!!",
">\n\nSeveral excellent candidates will be in the running for this seat. It will be quite interesting.",
">\n\nI wholeheartedly agree, whether it’s Schiff or Porter you can’t go wrong either way.",
">\n\nShe’s one of the few democrats who capable of calling out bullshit effectively. Hope she wins",
">\n\nLet's fuckin go!!!",
">\n\nThis is awesome! \nThe question is will Schiff jump in.",
">\n\nProbably. It's time for him and he already said he wanted to couple months ago.",
">\n\nSchiff has the charisma of a wet paper towel.",
">\n\nTrue, but charisma is overrated for a Senate post. It's not the place for excitement.",
">\n\nI’m not unhappy about this."
] |
>
Join her campaign newsletter and donate! The number of donations on the first day will be an important metric for the headlines in the coming weeks
|
[
"Feinstein is turning 90 this year. And unlike the right's talking points about Biden, rumors of serious cognitive decline for her are much more concrete and concerning. I really hope she has the grace to retire and enjoy her sunset years instead of muddying her legacy with the mess another term would likely turn into. Because here's the thing, if she runs, she's probably still going to win, and that's not the best thing for her or for this country.",
">\n\nIf it’s a primary with Katie Porter, I won’t vote for Feinstein.",
">\n\nWhy would you vote for Feinstein at this age in any primary? Katie Porter or not?",
">\n\nWe’re gonna need a bigger whiteboard!",
">\n\nHer districted got remapped this cycle and she basically had to introduce herself all over again to voters, and still won in a tough environment.\nShe’d be amazing in the Senate, and smart of her to jump out early and get ahead of other potential candidates. Now we just have to hope Feinstein’s massive ego doesn’t cause her to mount an absurd reelection bid in ‘24",
">\n\nFeinstein is 89, and don't members of the Senate whisper that cognitively she's in serious decline? I honestly don't get any senator that is so old they don't just retire and enjoy their remaining days on Earth relaxing.",
">\n\nThere’s no whispering, people in her office have talked about it with the press.",
">\n\nYeah it’s a pretty open secret at this point",
">\n\nShe’s got my vote.",
">\n\nThe only good thing to come out of OC, Katie Porter!!!",
">\n\nSeveral excellent candidates will be in the running for this seat. It will be quite interesting.",
">\n\nI wholeheartedly agree, whether it’s Schiff or Porter you can’t go wrong either way.",
">\n\nShe’s one of the few democrats who capable of calling out bullshit effectively. Hope she wins",
">\n\nLet's fuckin go!!!",
">\n\nThis is awesome! \nThe question is will Schiff jump in.",
">\n\nProbably. It's time for him and he already said he wanted to couple months ago.",
">\n\nSchiff has the charisma of a wet paper towel.",
">\n\nTrue, but charisma is overrated for a Senate post. It's not the place for excitement.",
">\n\nI’m not unhappy about this.",
">\n\nShitty LA Times needs to look in the mirror at how they gave Feinstein a free pass. Their only interview with her this decade was unfreezing George Skelton to have him sit down with her and her staff (no pictures, no video).\nEven through his soft-ball questions and friendly edits, it was obvious that her staff is manipulating her like 'Weekend at Bernies'. \nLooking back its a good thing Kevin De Leon is such a horrible politician he couldn't even beat that zombie last election; now that the Times finally discovered that he and some of the Latinos controlling LA City Council are racist against black people.\nKatie's my Rep now, and hopefully we can replace her with someone good. She'll be a great Senator, a Gen-X Elizabeth Warren who must have learned from Barbara Boxer."
] |
>
The number of donations on the first day will be an important metric for the headlines in the coming weeks
I agree - and done!
|
[
"Feinstein is turning 90 this year. And unlike the right's talking points about Biden, rumors of serious cognitive decline for her are much more concrete and concerning. I really hope she has the grace to retire and enjoy her sunset years instead of muddying her legacy with the mess another term would likely turn into. Because here's the thing, if she runs, she's probably still going to win, and that's not the best thing for her or for this country.",
">\n\nIf it’s a primary with Katie Porter, I won’t vote for Feinstein.",
">\n\nWhy would you vote for Feinstein at this age in any primary? Katie Porter or not?",
">\n\nWe’re gonna need a bigger whiteboard!",
">\n\nHer districted got remapped this cycle and she basically had to introduce herself all over again to voters, and still won in a tough environment.\nShe’d be amazing in the Senate, and smart of her to jump out early and get ahead of other potential candidates. Now we just have to hope Feinstein’s massive ego doesn’t cause her to mount an absurd reelection bid in ‘24",
">\n\nFeinstein is 89, and don't members of the Senate whisper that cognitively she's in serious decline? I honestly don't get any senator that is so old they don't just retire and enjoy their remaining days on Earth relaxing.",
">\n\nThere’s no whispering, people in her office have talked about it with the press.",
">\n\nYeah it’s a pretty open secret at this point",
">\n\nShe’s got my vote.",
">\n\nThe only good thing to come out of OC, Katie Porter!!!",
">\n\nSeveral excellent candidates will be in the running for this seat. It will be quite interesting.",
">\n\nI wholeheartedly agree, whether it’s Schiff or Porter you can’t go wrong either way.",
">\n\nShe’s one of the few democrats who capable of calling out bullshit effectively. Hope she wins",
">\n\nLet's fuckin go!!!",
">\n\nThis is awesome! \nThe question is will Schiff jump in.",
">\n\nProbably. It's time for him and he already said he wanted to couple months ago.",
">\n\nSchiff has the charisma of a wet paper towel.",
">\n\nTrue, but charisma is overrated for a Senate post. It's not the place for excitement.",
">\n\nI’m not unhappy about this.",
">\n\nShitty LA Times needs to look in the mirror at how they gave Feinstein a free pass. Their only interview with her this decade was unfreezing George Skelton to have him sit down with her and her staff (no pictures, no video).\nEven through his soft-ball questions and friendly edits, it was obvious that her staff is manipulating her like 'Weekend at Bernies'. \nLooking back its a good thing Kevin De Leon is such a horrible politician he couldn't even beat that zombie last election; now that the Times finally discovered that he and some of the Latinos controlling LA City Council are racist against black people.\nKatie's my Rep now, and hopefully we can replace her with someone good. She'll be a great Senator, a Gen-X Elizabeth Warren who must have learned from Barbara Boxer.",
">\n\nJoin her campaign newsletter and donate! The number of donations on the first day will be an important metric for the headlines in the coming weeks"
] |
>
For gods sake get Feinstein out of there. She's a clear and present danger to our Demo... Oligar... Uhh... Huh...
|
[
"Feinstein is turning 90 this year. And unlike the right's talking points about Biden, rumors of serious cognitive decline for her are much more concrete and concerning. I really hope she has the grace to retire and enjoy her sunset years instead of muddying her legacy with the mess another term would likely turn into. Because here's the thing, if she runs, she's probably still going to win, and that's not the best thing for her or for this country.",
">\n\nIf it’s a primary with Katie Porter, I won’t vote for Feinstein.",
">\n\nWhy would you vote for Feinstein at this age in any primary? Katie Porter or not?",
">\n\nWe’re gonna need a bigger whiteboard!",
">\n\nHer districted got remapped this cycle and she basically had to introduce herself all over again to voters, and still won in a tough environment.\nShe’d be amazing in the Senate, and smart of her to jump out early and get ahead of other potential candidates. Now we just have to hope Feinstein’s massive ego doesn’t cause her to mount an absurd reelection bid in ‘24",
">\n\nFeinstein is 89, and don't members of the Senate whisper that cognitively she's in serious decline? I honestly don't get any senator that is so old they don't just retire and enjoy their remaining days on Earth relaxing.",
">\n\nThere’s no whispering, people in her office have talked about it with the press.",
">\n\nYeah it’s a pretty open secret at this point",
">\n\nShe’s got my vote.",
">\n\nThe only good thing to come out of OC, Katie Porter!!!",
">\n\nSeveral excellent candidates will be in the running for this seat. It will be quite interesting.",
">\n\nI wholeheartedly agree, whether it’s Schiff or Porter you can’t go wrong either way.",
">\n\nShe’s one of the few democrats who capable of calling out bullshit effectively. Hope she wins",
">\n\nLet's fuckin go!!!",
">\n\nThis is awesome! \nThe question is will Schiff jump in.",
">\n\nProbably. It's time for him and he already said he wanted to couple months ago.",
">\n\nSchiff has the charisma of a wet paper towel.",
">\n\nTrue, but charisma is overrated for a Senate post. It's not the place for excitement.",
">\n\nI’m not unhappy about this.",
">\n\nShitty LA Times needs to look in the mirror at how they gave Feinstein a free pass. Their only interview with her this decade was unfreezing George Skelton to have him sit down with her and her staff (no pictures, no video).\nEven through his soft-ball questions and friendly edits, it was obvious that her staff is manipulating her like 'Weekend at Bernies'. \nLooking back its a good thing Kevin De Leon is such a horrible politician he couldn't even beat that zombie last election; now that the Times finally discovered that he and some of the Latinos controlling LA City Council are racist against black people.\nKatie's my Rep now, and hopefully we can replace her with someone good. She'll be a great Senator, a Gen-X Elizabeth Warren who must have learned from Barbara Boxer.",
">\n\nJoin her campaign newsletter and donate! The number of donations on the first day will be an important metric for the headlines in the coming weeks",
">\n\n\nThe number of donations on the first day will be an important metric for the headlines in the coming weeks\n\nI agree - and done!"
] |
>
"Republic."
|
[
"Feinstein is turning 90 this year. And unlike the right's talking points about Biden, rumors of serious cognitive decline for her are much more concrete and concerning. I really hope she has the grace to retire and enjoy her sunset years instead of muddying her legacy with the mess another term would likely turn into. Because here's the thing, if she runs, she's probably still going to win, and that's not the best thing for her or for this country.",
">\n\nIf it’s a primary with Katie Porter, I won’t vote for Feinstein.",
">\n\nWhy would you vote for Feinstein at this age in any primary? Katie Porter or not?",
">\n\nWe’re gonna need a bigger whiteboard!",
">\n\nHer districted got remapped this cycle and she basically had to introduce herself all over again to voters, and still won in a tough environment.\nShe’d be amazing in the Senate, and smart of her to jump out early and get ahead of other potential candidates. Now we just have to hope Feinstein’s massive ego doesn’t cause her to mount an absurd reelection bid in ‘24",
">\n\nFeinstein is 89, and don't members of the Senate whisper that cognitively she's in serious decline? I honestly don't get any senator that is so old they don't just retire and enjoy their remaining days on Earth relaxing.",
">\n\nThere’s no whispering, people in her office have talked about it with the press.",
">\n\nYeah it’s a pretty open secret at this point",
">\n\nShe’s got my vote.",
">\n\nThe only good thing to come out of OC, Katie Porter!!!",
">\n\nSeveral excellent candidates will be in the running for this seat. It will be quite interesting.",
">\n\nI wholeheartedly agree, whether it’s Schiff or Porter you can’t go wrong either way.",
">\n\nShe’s one of the few democrats who capable of calling out bullshit effectively. Hope she wins",
">\n\nLet's fuckin go!!!",
">\n\nThis is awesome! \nThe question is will Schiff jump in.",
">\n\nProbably. It's time for him and he already said he wanted to couple months ago.",
">\n\nSchiff has the charisma of a wet paper towel.",
">\n\nTrue, but charisma is overrated for a Senate post. It's not the place for excitement.",
">\n\nI’m not unhappy about this.",
">\n\nShitty LA Times needs to look in the mirror at how they gave Feinstein a free pass. Their only interview with her this decade was unfreezing George Skelton to have him sit down with her and her staff (no pictures, no video).\nEven through his soft-ball questions and friendly edits, it was obvious that her staff is manipulating her like 'Weekend at Bernies'. \nLooking back its a good thing Kevin De Leon is such a horrible politician he couldn't even beat that zombie last election; now that the Times finally discovered that he and some of the Latinos controlling LA City Council are racist against black people.\nKatie's my Rep now, and hopefully we can replace her with someone good. She'll be a great Senator, a Gen-X Elizabeth Warren who must have learned from Barbara Boxer.",
">\n\nJoin her campaign newsletter and donate! The number of donations on the first day will be an important metric for the headlines in the coming weeks",
">\n\n\nThe number of donations on the first day will be an important metric for the headlines in the coming weeks\n\nI agree - and done!",
">\n\nFor gods sake get Feinstein out of there. She's a clear and present danger to our Demo... Oligar... Uhh... Huh..."
] |
>
Fantastic news, go get em Katie
|
[
"Feinstein is turning 90 this year. And unlike the right's talking points about Biden, rumors of serious cognitive decline for her are much more concrete and concerning. I really hope she has the grace to retire and enjoy her sunset years instead of muddying her legacy with the mess another term would likely turn into. Because here's the thing, if she runs, she's probably still going to win, and that's not the best thing for her or for this country.",
">\n\nIf it’s a primary with Katie Porter, I won’t vote for Feinstein.",
">\n\nWhy would you vote for Feinstein at this age in any primary? Katie Porter or not?",
">\n\nWe’re gonna need a bigger whiteboard!",
">\n\nHer districted got remapped this cycle and she basically had to introduce herself all over again to voters, and still won in a tough environment.\nShe’d be amazing in the Senate, and smart of her to jump out early and get ahead of other potential candidates. Now we just have to hope Feinstein’s massive ego doesn’t cause her to mount an absurd reelection bid in ‘24",
">\n\nFeinstein is 89, and don't members of the Senate whisper that cognitively she's in serious decline? I honestly don't get any senator that is so old they don't just retire and enjoy their remaining days on Earth relaxing.",
">\n\nThere’s no whispering, people in her office have talked about it with the press.",
">\n\nYeah it’s a pretty open secret at this point",
">\n\nShe’s got my vote.",
">\n\nThe only good thing to come out of OC, Katie Porter!!!",
">\n\nSeveral excellent candidates will be in the running for this seat. It will be quite interesting.",
">\n\nI wholeheartedly agree, whether it’s Schiff or Porter you can’t go wrong either way.",
">\n\nShe’s one of the few democrats who capable of calling out bullshit effectively. Hope she wins",
">\n\nLet's fuckin go!!!",
">\n\nThis is awesome! \nThe question is will Schiff jump in.",
">\n\nProbably. It's time for him and he already said he wanted to couple months ago.",
">\n\nSchiff has the charisma of a wet paper towel.",
">\n\nTrue, but charisma is overrated for a Senate post. It's not the place for excitement.",
">\n\nI’m not unhappy about this.",
">\n\nShitty LA Times needs to look in the mirror at how they gave Feinstein a free pass. Their only interview with her this decade was unfreezing George Skelton to have him sit down with her and her staff (no pictures, no video).\nEven through his soft-ball questions and friendly edits, it was obvious that her staff is manipulating her like 'Weekend at Bernies'. \nLooking back its a good thing Kevin De Leon is such a horrible politician he couldn't even beat that zombie last election; now that the Times finally discovered that he and some of the Latinos controlling LA City Council are racist against black people.\nKatie's my Rep now, and hopefully we can replace her with someone good. She'll be a great Senator, a Gen-X Elizabeth Warren who must have learned from Barbara Boxer.",
">\n\nJoin her campaign newsletter and donate! The number of donations on the first day will be an important metric for the headlines in the coming weeks",
">\n\n\nThe number of donations on the first day will be an important metric for the headlines in the coming weeks\n\nI agree - and done!",
">\n\nFor gods sake get Feinstein out of there. She's a clear and present danger to our Demo... Oligar... Uhh... Huh...",
">\n\n\"Republic.\""
] |
>
I'd love to see her run for president in 2028 or 2032. She's an excellent pick. She doesn't have the baggage that people like Harris and Newsom have, and it doesn't take away our strong candidates with name recognition in more competitive races, like Fetterman.
|
[
"Feinstein is turning 90 this year. And unlike the right's talking points about Biden, rumors of serious cognitive decline for her are much more concrete and concerning. I really hope she has the grace to retire and enjoy her sunset years instead of muddying her legacy with the mess another term would likely turn into. Because here's the thing, if she runs, she's probably still going to win, and that's not the best thing for her or for this country.",
">\n\nIf it’s a primary with Katie Porter, I won’t vote for Feinstein.",
">\n\nWhy would you vote for Feinstein at this age in any primary? Katie Porter or not?",
">\n\nWe’re gonna need a bigger whiteboard!",
">\n\nHer districted got remapped this cycle and she basically had to introduce herself all over again to voters, and still won in a tough environment.\nShe’d be amazing in the Senate, and smart of her to jump out early and get ahead of other potential candidates. Now we just have to hope Feinstein’s massive ego doesn’t cause her to mount an absurd reelection bid in ‘24",
">\n\nFeinstein is 89, and don't members of the Senate whisper that cognitively she's in serious decline? I honestly don't get any senator that is so old they don't just retire and enjoy their remaining days on Earth relaxing.",
">\n\nThere’s no whispering, people in her office have talked about it with the press.",
">\n\nYeah it’s a pretty open secret at this point",
">\n\nShe’s got my vote.",
">\n\nThe only good thing to come out of OC, Katie Porter!!!",
">\n\nSeveral excellent candidates will be in the running for this seat. It will be quite interesting.",
">\n\nI wholeheartedly agree, whether it’s Schiff or Porter you can’t go wrong either way.",
">\n\nShe’s one of the few democrats who capable of calling out bullshit effectively. Hope she wins",
">\n\nLet's fuckin go!!!",
">\n\nThis is awesome! \nThe question is will Schiff jump in.",
">\n\nProbably. It's time for him and he already said he wanted to couple months ago.",
">\n\nSchiff has the charisma of a wet paper towel.",
">\n\nTrue, but charisma is overrated for a Senate post. It's not the place for excitement.",
">\n\nI’m not unhappy about this.",
">\n\nShitty LA Times needs to look in the mirror at how they gave Feinstein a free pass. Their only interview with her this decade was unfreezing George Skelton to have him sit down with her and her staff (no pictures, no video).\nEven through his soft-ball questions and friendly edits, it was obvious that her staff is manipulating her like 'Weekend at Bernies'. \nLooking back its a good thing Kevin De Leon is such a horrible politician he couldn't even beat that zombie last election; now that the Times finally discovered that he and some of the Latinos controlling LA City Council are racist against black people.\nKatie's my Rep now, and hopefully we can replace her with someone good. She'll be a great Senator, a Gen-X Elizabeth Warren who must have learned from Barbara Boxer.",
">\n\nJoin her campaign newsletter and donate! The number of donations on the first day will be an important metric for the headlines in the coming weeks",
">\n\n\nThe number of donations on the first day will be an important metric for the headlines in the coming weeks\n\nI agree - and done!",
">\n\nFor gods sake get Feinstein out of there. She's a clear and present danger to our Demo... Oligar... Uhh... Huh...",
">\n\n\"Republic.\"",
">\n\nFantastic news, go get em Katie"
] |
>
Good, feinstein has to go, she is fucking awful.
|
[
"Feinstein is turning 90 this year. And unlike the right's talking points about Biden, rumors of serious cognitive decline for her are much more concrete and concerning. I really hope she has the grace to retire and enjoy her sunset years instead of muddying her legacy with the mess another term would likely turn into. Because here's the thing, if she runs, she's probably still going to win, and that's not the best thing for her or for this country.",
">\n\nIf it’s a primary with Katie Porter, I won’t vote for Feinstein.",
">\n\nWhy would you vote for Feinstein at this age in any primary? Katie Porter or not?",
">\n\nWe’re gonna need a bigger whiteboard!",
">\n\nHer districted got remapped this cycle and she basically had to introduce herself all over again to voters, and still won in a tough environment.\nShe’d be amazing in the Senate, and smart of her to jump out early and get ahead of other potential candidates. Now we just have to hope Feinstein’s massive ego doesn’t cause her to mount an absurd reelection bid in ‘24",
">\n\nFeinstein is 89, and don't members of the Senate whisper that cognitively she's in serious decline? I honestly don't get any senator that is so old they don't just retire and enjoy their remaining days on Earth relaxing.",
">\n\nThere’s no whispering, people in her office have talked about it with the press.",
">\n\nYeah it’s a pretty open secret at this point",
">\n\nShe’s got my vote.",
">\n\nThe only good thing to come out of OC, Katie Porter!!!",
">\n\nSeveral excellent candidates will be in the running for this seat. It will be quite interesting.",
">\n\nI wholeheartedly agree, whether it’s Schiff or Porter you can’t go wrong either way.",
">\n\nShe’s one of the few democrats who capable of calling out bullshit effectively. Hope she wins",
">\n\nLet's fuckin go!!!",
">\n\nThis is awesome! \nThe question is will Schiff jump in.",
">\n\nProbably. It's time for him and he already said he wanted to couple months ago.",
">\n\nSchiff has the charisma of a wet paper towel.",
">\n\nTrue, but charisma is overrated for a Senate post. It's not the place for excitement.",
">\n\nI’m not unhappy about this.",
">\n\nShitty LA Times needs to look in the mirror at how they gave Feinstein a free pass. Their only interview with her this decade was unfreezing George Skelton to have him sit down with her and her staff (no pictures, no video).\nEven through his soft-ball questions and friendly edits, it was obvious that her staff is manipulating her like 'Weekend at Bernies'. \nLooking back its a good thing Kevin De Leon is such a horrible politician he couldn't even beat that zombie last election; now that the Times finally discovered that he and some of the Latinos controlling LA City Council are racist against black people.\nKatie's my Rep now, and hopefully we can replace her with someone good. She'll be a great Senator, a Gen-X Elizabeth Warren who must have learned from Barbara Boxer.",
">\n\nJoin her campaign newsletter and donate! The number of donations on the first day will be an important metric for the headlines in the coming weeks",
">\n\n\nThe number of donations on the first day will be an important metric for the headlines in the coming weeks\n\nI agree - and done!",
">\n\nFor gods sake get Feinstein out of there. She's a clear and present danger to our Demo... Oligar... Uhh... Huh...",
">\n\n\"Republic.\"",
">\n\nFantastic news, go get em Katie",
">\n\nI'd love to see her run for president in 2028 or 2032. She's an excellent pick. She doesn't have the baggage that people like Harris and Newsom have, and it doesn't take away our strong candidates with name recognition in more competitive races, like Fetterman."
] |
>
guessing she is trying to get a jump on schiff.
|
[
"Feinstein is turning 90 this year. And unlike the right's talking points about Biden, rumors of serious cognitive decline for her are much more concrete and concerning. I really hope she has the grace to retire and enjoy her sunset years instead of muddying her legacy with the mess another term would likely turn into. Because here's the thing, if she runs, she's probably still going to win, and that's not the best thing for her or for this country.",
">\n\nIf it’s a primary with Katie Porter, I won’t vote for Feinstein.",
">\n\nWhy would you vote for Feinstein at this age in any primary? Katie Porter or not?",
">\n\nWe’re gonna need a bigger whiteboard!",
">\n\nHer districted got remapped this cycle and she basically had to introduce herself all over again to voters, and still won in a tough environment.\nShe’d be amazing in the Senate, and smart of her to jump out early and get ahead of other potential candidates. Now we just have to hope Feinstein’s massive ego doesn’t cause her to mount an absurd reelection bid in ‘24",
">\n\nFeinstein is 89, and don't members of the Senate whisper that cognitively she's in serious decline? I honestly don't get any senator that is so old they don't just retire and enjoy their remaining days on Earth relaxing.",
">\n\nThere’s no whispering, people in her office have talked about it with the press.",
">\n\nYeah it’s a pretty open secret at this point",
">\n\nShe’s got my vote.",
">\n\nThe only good thing to come out of OC, Katie Porter!!!",
">\n\nSeveral excellent candidates will be in the running for this seat. It will be quite interesting.",
">\n\nI wholeheartedly agree, whether it’s Schiff or Porter you can’t go wrong either way.",
">\n\nShe’s one of the few democrats who capable of calling out bullshit effectively. Hope she wins",
">\n\nLet's fuckin go!!!",
">\n\nThis is awesome! \nThe question is will Schiff jump in.",
">\n\nProbably. It's time for him and he already said he wanted to couple months ago.",
">\n\nSchiff has the charisma of a wet paper towel.",
">\n\nTrue, but charisma is overrated for a Senate post. It's not the place for excitement.",
">\n\nI’m not unhappy about this.",
">\n\nShitty LA Times needs to look in the mirror at how they gave Feinstein a free pass. Their only interview with her this decade was unfreezing George Skelton to have him sit down with her and her staff (no pictures, no video).\nEven through his soft-ball questions and friendly edits, it was obvious that her staff is manipulating her like 'Weekend at Bernies'. \nLooking back its a good thing Kevin De Leon is such a horrible politician he couldn't even beat that zombie last election; now that the Times finally discovered that he and some of the Latinos controlling LA City Council are racist against black people.\nKatie's my Rep now, and hopefully we can replace her with someone good. She'll be a great Senator, a Gen-X Elizabeth Warren who must have learned from Barbara Boxer.",
">\n\nJoin her campaign newsletter and donate! The number of donations on the first day will be an important metric for the headlines in the coming weeks",
">\n\n\nThe number of donations on the first day will be an important metric for the headlines in the coming weeks\n\nI agree - and done!",
">\n\nFor gods sake get Feinstein out of there. She's a clear and present danger to our Demo... Oligar... Uhh... Huh...",
">\n\n\"Republic.\"",
">\n\nFantastic news, go get em Katie",
">\n\nI'd love to see her run for president in 2028 or 2032. She's an excellent pick. She doesn't have the baggage that people like Harris and Newsom have, and it doesn't take away our strong candidates with name recognition in more competitive races, like Fetterman.",
">\n\nGood, feinstein has to go, she is fucking awful."
] |
>
She the only not awful candidate tbh
|
[
"Feinstein is turning 90 this year. And unlike the right's talking points about Biden, rumors of serious cognitive decline for her are much more concrete and concerning. I really hope she has the grace to retire and enjoy her sunset years instead of muddying her legacy with the mess another term would likely turn into. Because here's the thing, if she runs, she's probably still going to win, and that's not the best thing for her or for this country.",
">\n\nIf it’s a primary with Katie Porter, I won’t vote for Feinstein.",
">\n\nWhy would you vote for Feinstein at this age in any primary? Katie Porter or not?",
">\n\nWe’re gonna need a bigger whiteboard!",
">\n\nHer districted got remapped this cycle and she basically had to introduce herself all over again to voters, and still won in a tough environment.\nShe’d be amazing in the Senate, and smart of her to jump out early and get ahead of other potential candidates. Now we just have to hope Feinstein’s massive ego doesn’t cause her to mount an absurd reelection bid in ‘24",
">\n\nFeinstein is 89, and don't members of the Senate whisper that cognitively she's in serious decline? I honestly don't get any senator that is so old they don't just retire and enjoy their remaining days on Earth relaxing.",
">\n\nThere’s no whispering, people in her office have talked about it with the press.",
">\n\nYeah it’s a pretty open secret at this point",
">\n\nShe’s got my vote.",
">\n\nThe only good thing to come out of OC, Katie Porter!!!",
">\n\nSeveral excellent candidates will be in the running for this seat. It will be quite interesting.",
">\n\nI wholeheartedly agree, whether it’s Schiff or Porter you can’t go wrong either way.",
">\n\nShe’s one of the few democrats who capable of calling out bullshit effectively. Hope she wins",
">\n\nLet's fuckin go!!!",
">\n\nThis is awesome! \nThe question is will Schiff jump in.",
">\n\nProbably. It's time for him and he already said he wanted to couple months ago.",
">\n\nSchiff has the charisma of a wet paper towel.",
">\n\nTrue, but charisma is overrated for a Senate post. It's not the place for excitement.",
">\n\nI’m not unhappy about this.",
">\n\nShitty LA Times needs to look in the mirror at how they gave Feinstein a free pass. Their only interview with her this decade was unfreezing George Skelton to have him sit down with her and her staff (no pictures, no video).\nEven through his soft-ball questions and friendly edits, it was obvious that her staff is manipulating her like 'Weekend at Bernies'. \nLooking back its a good thing Kevin De Leon is such a horrible politician he couldn't even beat that zombie last election; now that the Times finally discovered that he and some of the Latinos controlling LA City Council are racist against black people.\nKatie's my Rep now, and hopefully we can replace her with someone good. She'll be a great Senator, a Gen-X Elizabeth Warren who must have learned from Barbara Boxer.",
">\n\nJoin her campaign newsletter and donate! The number of donations on the first day will be an important metric for the headlines in the coming weeks",
">\n\n\nThe number of donations on the first day will be an important metric for the headlines in the coming weeks\n\nI agree - and done!",
">\n\nFor gods sake get Feinstein out of there. She's a clear and present danger to our Demo... Oligar... Uhh... Huh...",
">\n\n\"Republic.\"",
">\n\nFantastic news, go get em Katie",
">\n\nI'd love to see her run for president in 2028 or 2032. She's an excellent pick. She doesn't have the baggage that people like Harris and Newsom have, and it doesn't take away our strong candidates with name recognition in more competitive races, like Fetterman.",
">\n\nGood, feinstein has to go, she is fucking awful.",
">\n\nguessing she is trying to get a jump on schiff."
] |
>
Nice waking up tp good news
|
[
"Feinstein is turning 90 this year. And unlike the right's talking points about Biden, rumors of serious cognitive decline for her are much more concrete and concerning. I really hope she has the grace to retire and enjoy her sunset years instead of muddying her legacy with the mess another term would likely turn into. Because here's the thing, if she runs, she's probably still going to win, and that's not the best thing for her or for this country.",
">\n\nIf it’s a primary with Katie Porter, I won’t vote for Feinstein.",
">\n\nWhy would you vote for Feinstein at this age in any primary? Katie Porter or not?",
">\n\nWe’re gonna need a bigger whiteboard!",
">\n\nHer districted got remapped this cycle and she basically had to introduce herself all over again to voters, and still won in a tough environment.\nShe’d be amazing in the Senate, and smart of her to jump out early and get ahead of other potential candidates. Now we just have to hope Feinstein’s massive ego doesn’t cause her to mount an absurd reelection bid in ‘24",
">\n\nFeinstein is 89, and don't members of the Senate whisper that cognitively she's in serious decline? I honestly don't get any senator that is so old they don't just retire and enjoy their remaining days on Earth relaxing.",
">\n\nThere’s no whispering, people in her office have talked about it with the press.",
">\n\nYeah it’s a pretty open secret at this point",
">\n\nShe’s got my vote.",
">\n\nThe only good thing to come out of OC, Katie Porter!!!",
">\n\nSeveral excellent candidates will be in the running for this seat. It will be quite interesting.",
">\n\nI wholeheartedly agree, whether it’s Schiff or Porter you can’t go wrong either way.",
">\n\nShe’s one of the few democrats who capable of calling out bullshit effectively. Hope she wins",
">\n\nLet's fuckin go!!!",
">\n\nThis is awesome! \nThe question is will Schiff jump in.",
">\n\nProbably. It's time for him and he already said he wanted to couple months ago.",
">\n\nSchiff has the charisma of a wet paper towel.",
">\n\nTrue, but charisma is overrated for a Senate post. It's not the place for excitement.",
">\n\nI’m not unhappy about this.",
">\n\nShitty LA Times needs to look in the mirror at how they gave Feinstein a free pass. Their only interview with her this decade was unfreezing George Skelton to have him sit down with her and her staff (no pictures, no video).\nEven through his soft-ball questions and friendly edits, it was obvious that her staff is manipulating her like 'Weekend at Bernies'. \nLooking back its a good thing Kevin De Leon is such a horrible politician he couldn't even beat that zombie last election; now that the Times finally discovered that he and some of the Latinos controlling LA City Council are racist against black people.\nKatie's my Rep now, and hopefully we can replace her with someone good. She'll be a great Senator, a Gen-X Elizabeth Warren who must have learned from Barbara Boxer.",
">\n\nJoin her campaign newsletter and donate! The number of donations on the first day will be an important metric for the headlines in the coming weeks",
">\n\n\nThe number of donations on the first day will be an important metric for the headlines in the coming weeks\n\nI agree - and done!",
">\n\nFor gods sake get Feinstein out of there. She's a clear and present danger to our Demo... Oligar... Uhh... Huh...",
">\n\n\"Republic.\"",
">\n\nFantastic news, go get em Katie",
">\n\nI'd love to see her run for president in 2028 or 2032. She's an excellent pick. She doesn't have the baggage that people like Harris and Newsom have, and it doesn't take away our strong candidates with name recognition in more competitive races, like Fetterman.",
">\n\nGood, feinstein has to go, she is fucking awful.",
">\n\nguessing she is trying to get a jump on schiff.",
">\n\nShe the only not awful candidate tbh"
] |
>
The same goes for Biden, McConnell, Maxine Waters, Janet Yellen and Nancy Pelosi, all of them are at least 78-80 Years old and the only goal is to die in office so if that is the case it shouldn't be much longer.
|
[
"Feinstein is turning 90 this year. And unlike the right's talking points about Biden, rumors of serious cognitive decline for her are much more concrete and concerning. I really hope she has the grace to retire and enjoy her sunset years instead of muddying her legacy with the mess another term would likely turn into. Because here's the thing, if she runs, she's probably still going to win, and that's not the best thing for her or for this country.",
">\n\nIf it’s a primary with Katie Porter, I won’t vote for Feinstein.",
">\n\nWhy would you vote for Feinstein at this age in any primary? Katie Porter or not?",
">\n\nWe’re gonna need a bigger whiteboard!",
">\n\nHer districted got remapped this cycle and she basically had to introduce herself all over again to voters, and still won in a tough environment.\nShe’d be amazing in the Senate, and smart of her to jump out early and get ahead of other potential candidates. Now we just have to hope Feinstein’s massive ego doesn’t cause her to mount an absurd reelection bid in ‘24",
">\n\nFeinstein is 89, and don't members of the Senate whisper that cognitively she's in serious decline? I honestly don't get any senator that is so old they don't just retire and enjoy their remaining days on Earth relaxing.",
">\n\nThere’s no whispering, people in her office have talked about it with the press.",
">\n\nYeah it’s a pretty open secret at this point",
">\n\nShe’s got my vote.",
">\n\nThe only good thing to come out of OC, Katie Porter!!!",
">\n\nSeveral excellent candidates will be in the running for this seat. It will be quite interesting.",
">\n\nI wholeheartedly agree, whether it’s Schiff or Porter you can’t go wrong either way.",
">\n\nShe’s one of the few democrats who capable of calling out bullshit effectively. Hope she wins",
">\n\nLet's fuckin go!!!",
">\n\nThis is awesome! \nThe question is will Schiff jump in.",
">\n\nProbably. It's time for him and he already said he wanted to couple months ago.",
">\n\nSchiff has the charisma of a wet paper towel.",
">\n\nTrue, but charisma is overrated for a Senate post. It's not the place for excitement.",
">\n\nI’m not unhappy about this.",
">\n\nShitty LA Times needs to look in the mirror at how they gave Feinstein a free pass. Their only interview with her this decade was unfreezing George Skelton to have him sit down with her and her staff (no pictures, no video).\nEven through his soft-ball questions and friendly edits, it was obvious that her staff is manipulating her like 'Weekend at Bernies'. \nLooking back its a good thing Kevin De Leon is such a horrible politician he couldn't even beat that zombie last election; now that the Times finally discovered that he and some of the Latinos controlling LA City Council are racist against black people.\nKatie's my Rep now, and hopefully we can replace her with someone good. She'll be a great Senator, a Gen-X Elizabeth Warren who must have learned from Barbara Boxer.",
">\n\nJoin her campaign newsletter and donate! The number of donations on the first day will be an important metric for the headlines in the coming weeks",
">\n\n\nThe number of donations on the first day will be an important metric for the headlines in the coming weeks\n\nI agree - and done!",
">\n\nFor gods sake get Feinstein out of there. She's a clear and present danger to our Demo... Oligar... Uhh... Huh...",
">\n\n\"Republic.\"",
">\n\nFantastic news, go get em Katie",
">\n\nI'd love to see her run for president in 2028 or 2032. She's an excellent pick. She doesn't have the baggage that people like Harris and Newsom have, and it doesn't take away our strong candidates with name recognition in more competitive races, like Fetterman.",
">\n\nGood, feinstein has to go, she is fucking awful.",
">\n\nguessing she is trying to get a jump on schiff.",
">\n\nShe the only not awful candidate tbh",
">\n\nNice waking up tp good news"
] |
>
Can't wait for whiteboard Katie to have a seat in the Senate. The smell of expo markers will give the GOP senators PTSD.
|
[
"Feinstein is turning 90 this year. And unlike the right's talking points about Biden, rumors of serious cognitive decline for her are much more concrete and concerning. I really hope she has the grace to retire and enjoy her sunset years instead of muddying her legacy with the mess another term would likely turn into. Because here's the thing, if she runs, she's probably still going to win, and that's not the best thing for her or for this country.",
">\n\nIf it’s a primary with Katie Porter, I won’t vote for Feinstein.",
">\n\nWhy would you vote for Feinstein at this age in any primary? Katie Porter or not?",
">\n\nWe’re gonna need a bigger whiteboard!",
">\n\nHer districted got remapped this cycle and she basically had to introduce herself all over again to voters, and still won in a tough environment.\nShe’d be amazing in the Senate, and smart of her to jump out early and get ahead of other potential candidates. Now we just have to hope Feinstein’s massive ego doesn’t cause her to mount an absurd reelection bid in ‘24",
">\n\nFeinstein is 89, and don't members of the Senate whisper that cognitively she's in serious decline? I honestly don't get any senator that is so old they don't just retire and enjoy their remaining days on Earth relaxing.",
">\n\nThere’s no whispering, people in her office have talked about it with the press.",
">\n\nYeah it’s a pretty open secret at this point",
">\n\nShe’s got my vote.",
">\n\nThe only good thing to come out of OC, Katie Porter!!!",
">\n\nSeveral excellent candidates will be in the running for this seat. It will be quite interesting.",
">\n\nI wholeheartedly agree, whether it’s Schiff or Porter you can’t go wrong either way.",
">\n\nShe’s one of the few democrats who capable of calling out bullshit effectively. Hope she wins",
">\n\nLet's fuckin go!!!",
">\n\nThis is awesome! \nThe question is will Schiff jump in.",
">\n\nProbably. It's time for him and he already said he wanted to couple months ago.",
">\n\nSchiff has the charisma of a wet paper towel.",
">\n\nTrue, but charisma is overrated for a Senate post. It's not the place for excitement.",
">\n\nI’m not unhappy about this.",
">\n\nShitty LA Times needs to look in the mirror at how they gave Feinstein a free pass. Their only interview with her this decade was unfreezing George Skelton to have him sit down with her and her staff (no pictures, no video).\nEven through his soft-ball questions and friendly edits, it was obvious that her staff is manipulating her like 'Weekend at Bernies'. \nLooking back its a good thing Kevin De Leon is such a horrible politician he couldn't even beat that zombie last election; now that the Times finally discovered that he and some of the Latinos controlling LA City Council are racist against black people.\nKatie's my Rep now, and hopefully we can replace her with someone good. She'll be a great Senator, a Gen-X Elizabeth Warren who must have learned from Barbara Boxer.",
">\n\nJoin her campaign newsletter and donate! The number of donations on the first day will be an important metric for the headlines in the coming weeks",
">\n\n\nThe number of donations on the first day will be an important metric for the headlines in the coming weeks\n\nI agree - and done!",
">\n\nFor gods sake get Feinstein out of there. She's a clear and present danger to our Demo... Oligar... Uhh... Huh...",
">\n\n\"Republic.\"",
">\n\nFantastic news, go get em Katie",
">\n\nI'd love to see her run for president in 2028 or 2032. She's an excellent pick. She doesn't have the baggage that people like Harris and Newsom have, and it doesn't take away our strong candidates with name recognition in more competitive races, like Fetterman.",
">\n\nGood, feinstein has to go, she is fucking awful.",
">\n\nguessing she is trying to get a jump on schiff.",
">\n\nShe the only not awful candidate tbh",
">\n\nNice waking up tp good news",
">\n\nThe same goes for Biden, McConnell, Maxine Waters, Janet Yellen and Nancy Pelosi, all of them are at least 78-80 Years old and the only goal is to die in office so if that is the case it shouldn't be much longer."
] |
>
|
[
"Feinstein is turning 90 this year. And unlike the right's talking points about Biden, rumors of serious cognitive decline for her are much more concrete and concerning. I really hope she has the grace to retire and enjoy her sunset years instead of muddying her legacy with the mess another term would likely turn into. Because here's the thing, if she runs, she's probably still going to win, and that's not the best thing for her or for this country.",
">\n\nIf it’s a primary with Katie Porter, I won’t vote for Feinstein.",
">\n\nWhy would you vote for Feinstein at this age in any primary? Katie Porter or not?",
">\n\nWe’re gonna need a bigger whiteboard!",
">\n\nHer districted got remapped this cycle and she basically had to introduce herself all over again to voters, and still won in a tough environment.\nShe’d be amazing in the Senate, and smart of her to jump out early and get ahead of other potential candidates. Now we just have to hope Feinstein’s massive ego doesn’t cause her to mount an absurd reelection bid in ‘24",
">\n\nFeinstein is 89, and don't members of the Senate whisper that cognitively she's in serious decline? I honestly don't get any senator that is so old they don't just retire and enjoy their remaining days on Earth relaxing.",
">\n\nThere’s no whispering, people in her office have talked about it with the press.",
">\n\nYeah it’s a pretty open secret at this point",
">\n\nShe’s got my vote.",
">\n\nThe only good thing to come out of OC, Katie Porter!!!",
">\n\nSeveral excellent candidates will be in the running for this seat. It will be quite interesting.",
">\n\nI wholeheartedly agree, whether it’s Schiff or Porter you can’t go wrong either way.",
">\n\nShe’s one of the few democrats who capable of calling out bullshit effectively. Hope she wins",
">\n\nLet's fuckin go!!!",
">\n\nThis is awesome! \nThe question is will Schiff jump in.",
">\n\nProbably. It's time for him and he already said he wanted to couple months ago.",
">\n\nSchiff has the charisma of a wet paper towel.",
">\n\nTrue, but charisma is overrated for a Senate post. It's not the place for excitement.",
">\n\nI’m not unhappy about this.",
">\n\nShitty LA Times needs to look in the mirror at how they gave Feinstein a free pass. Their only interview with her this decade was unfreezing George Skelton to have him sit down with her and her staff (no pictures, no video).\nEven through his soft-ball questions and friendly edits, it was obvious that her staff is manipulating her like 'Weekend at Bernies'. \nLooking back its a good thing Kevin De Leon is such a horrible politician he couldn't even beat that zombie last election; now that the Times finally discovered that he and some of the Latinos controlling LA City Council are racist against black people.\nKatie's my Rep now, and hopefully we can replace her with someone good. She'll be a great Senator, a Gen-X Elizabeth Warren who must have learned from Barbara Boxer.",
">\n\nJoin her campaign newsletter and donate! The number of donations on the first day will be an important metric for the headlines in the coming weeks",
">\n\n\nThe number of donations on the first day will be an important metric for the headlines in the coming weeks\n\nI agree - and done!",
">\n\nFor gods sake get Feinstein out of there. She's a clear and present danger to our Demo... Oligar... Uhh... Huh...",
">\n\n\"Republic.\"",
">\n\nFantastic news, go get em Katie",
">\n\nI'd love to see her run for president in 2028 or 2032. She's an excellent pick. She doesn't have the baggage that people like Harris and Newsom have, and it doesn't take away our strong candidates with name recognition in more competitive races, like Fetterman.",
">\n\nGood, feinstein has to go, she is fucking awful.",
">\n\nguessing she is trying to get a jump on schiff.",
">\n\nShe the only not awful candidate tbh",
">\n\nNice waking up tp good news",
">\n\nThe same goes for Biden, McConnell, Maxine Waters, Janet Yellen and Nancy Pelosi, all of them are at least 78-80 Years old and the only goal is to die in office so if that is the case it shouldn't be much longer.",
">\n\nCan't wait for whiteboard Katie to have a seat in the Senate. The smell of expo markers will give the GOP senators PTSD."
] |
Errrr, isn’t that the definition of execution?
|
[] |
>
I think they mean it as in "Theyre just murdering people" vs "Punishment for crime"
|
[
"Errrr, isn’t that the definition of execution?"
] |
>
Which is again a definition of execution, no? Officially murdering someone over a conviction (whatever it may be)?
I get what they’re saying. If they wish to argue that these executions are against the law of the country in question, just say so.
|
[
"Errrr, isn’t that the definition of execution?",
">\n\nI think they mean it as in \"Theyre just murdering people\" vs \"Punishment for crime\""
] |
>
Per the definition of murder, if it's lawful it isn't murder.
|
[
"Errrr, isn’t that the definition of execution?",
">\n\nI think they mean it as in \"Theyre just murdering people\" vs \"Punishment for crime\"",
">\n\nWhich is again a definition of execution, no? Officially murdering someone over a conviction (whatever it may be)?\nI get what they’re saying. If they wish to argue that these executions are against the law of the country in question, just say so."
] |
>
But since the Iranian government gave itself the right to carry out the executions that makes it lawful and therefore not murder.
|
[
"Errrr, isn’t that the definition of execution?",
">\n\nI think they mean it as in \"Theyre just murdering people\" vs \"Punishment for crime\"",
">\n\nWhich is again a definition of execution, no? Officially murdering someone over a conviction (whatever it may be)?\nI get what they’re saying. If they wish to argue that these executions are against the law of the country in question, just say so.",
">\n\nPer the definition of murder, if it's lawful it isn't murder."
] |
>
Until the law is repealed by this goverment or the (obviously needed) new one, capital punishment for "waging a war on God" is legal. It isn't like this is a new thing in this backwards country's culture.
|
[
"Errrr, isn’t that the definition of execution?",
">\n\nI think they mean it as in \"Theyre just murdering people\" vs \"Punishment for crime\"",
">\n\nWhich is again a definition of execution, no? Officially murdering someone over a conviction (whatever it may be)?\nI get what they’re saying. If they wish to argue that these executions are against the law of the country in question, just say so.",
">\n\nPer the definition of murder, if it's lawful it isn't murder.",
">\n\nBut since the Iranian government gave itself the right to carry out the executions that makes it lawful and therefore not murder."
] |
>
I'm not commenting on the culture. Simply on the fact that we either agree that all capital punishment is barbaric or none is.
|
[
"Errrr, isn’t that the definition of execution?",
">\n\nI think they mean it as in \"Theyre just murdering people\" vs \"Punishment for crime\"",
">\n\nWhich is again a definition of execution, no? Officially murdering someone over a conviction (whatever it may be)?\nI get what they’re saying. If they wish to argue that these executions are against the law of the country in question, just say so.",
">\n\nPer the definition of murder, if it's lawful it isn't murder.",
">\n\nBut since the Iranian government gave itself the right to carry out the executions that makes it lawful and therefore not murder.",
">\n\nUntil the law is repealed by this goverment or the (obviously needed) new one, capital punishment for \"waging a war on God\" is legal. It isn't like this is a new thing in this backwards country's culture."
] |
>
Where has this twit been?
It's a government ordered execution, so...
|
[
"Errrr, isn’t that the definition of execution?",
">\n\nI think they mean it as in \"Theyre just murdering people\" vs \"Punishment for crime\"",
">\n\nWhich is again a definition of execution, no? Officially murdering someone over a conviction (whatever it may be)?\nI get what they’re saying. If they wish to argue that these executions are against the law of the country in question, just say so.",
">\n\nPer the definition of murder, if it's lawful it isn't murder.",
">\n\nBut since the Iranian government gave itself the right to carry out the executions that makes it lawful and therefore not murder.",
">\n\nUntil the law is repealed by this goverment or the (obviously needed) new one, capital punishment for \"waging a war on God\" is legal. It isn't like this is a new thing in this backwards country's culture.",
">\n\nI'm not commenting on the culture. Simply on the fact that we either agree that all capital punishment is barbaric or none is."
] |
>
I mean yeah?
|
[
"Errrr, isn’t that the definition of execution?",
">\n\nI think they mean it as in \"Theyre just murdering people\" vs \"Punishment for crime\"",
">\n\nWhich is again a definition of execution, no? Officially murdering someone over a conviction (whatever it may be)?\nI get what they’re saying. If they wish to argue that these executions are against the law of the country in question, just say so.",
">\n\nPer the definition of murder, if it's lawful it isn't murder.",
">\n\nBut since the Iranian government gave itself the right to carry out the executions that makes it lawful and therefore not murder.",
">\n\nUntil the law is repealed by this goverment or the (obviously needed) new one, capital punishment for \"waging a war on God\" is legal. It isn't like this is a new thing in this backwards country's culture.",
">\n\nI'm not commenting on the culture. Simply on the fact that we either agree that all capital punishment is barbaric or none is.",
">\n\nWhere has this twit been?\nIt's a government ordered execution, so..."
] |
>
So it’s an execution.
Great job UN rights chief, you are right on the edge of comprehending what executions are.
|
[
"Errrr, isn’t that the definition of execution?",
">\n\nI think they mean it as in \"Theyre just murdering people\" vs \"Punishment for crime\"",
">\n\nWhich is again a definition of execution, no? Officially murdering someone over a conviction (whatever it may be)?\nI get what they’re saying. If they wish to argue that these executions are against the law of the country in question, just say so.",
">\n\nPer the definition of murder, if it's lawful it isn't murder.",
">\n\nBut since the Iranian government gave itself the right to carry out the executions that makes it lawful and therefore not murder.",
">\n\nUntil the law is repealed by this goverment or the (obviously needed) new one, capital punishment for \"waging a war on God\" is legal. It isn't like this is a new thing in this backwards country's culture.",
">\n\nI'm not commenting on the culture. Simply on the fact that we either agree that all capital punishment is barbaric or none is.",
">\n\nWhere has this twit been?\nIt's a government ordered execution, so...",
">\n\nI mean yeah?"
] |
>
Way to call ‘em, Chief.
|
[
"Errrr, isn’t that the definition of execution?",
">\n\nI think they mean it as in \"Theyre just murdering people\" vs \"Punishment for crime\"",
">\n\nWhich is again a definition of execution, no? Officially murdering someone over a conviction (whatever it may be)?\nI get what they’re saying. If they wish to argue that these executions are against the law of the country in question, just say so.",
">\n\nPer the definition of murder, if it's lawful it isn't murder.",
">\n\nBut since the Iranian government gave itself the right to carry out the executions that makes it lawful and therefore not murder.",
">\n\nUntil the law is repealed by this goverment or the (obviously needed) new one, capital punishment for \"waging a war on God\" is legal. It isn't like this is a new thing in this backwards country's culture.",
">\n\nI'm not commenting on the culture. Simply on the fact that we either agree that all capital punishment is barbaric or none is.",
">\n\nWhere has this twit been?\nIt's a government ordered execution, so...",
">\n\nI mean yeah?",
">\n\nSo it’s an execution.\nGreat job UN rights chief, you are right on the edge of comprehending what executions are."
] |
>
Kinda the point of executing people.
|
[
"Errrr, isn’t that the definition of execution?",
">\n\nI think they mean it as in \"Theyre just murdering people\" vs \"Punishment for crime\"",
">\n\nWhich is again a definition of execution, no? Officially murdering someone over a conviction (whatever it may be)?\nI get what they’re saying. If they wish to argue that these executions are against the law of the country in question, just say so.",
">\n\nPer the definition of murder, if it's lawful it isn't murder.",
">\n\nBut since the Iranian government gave itself the right to carry out the executions that makes it lawful and therefore not murder.",
">\n\nUntil the law is repealed by this goverment or the (obviously needed) new one, capital punishment for \"waging a war on God\" is legal. It isn't like this is a new thing in this backwards country's culture.",
">\n\nI'm not commenting on the culture. Simply on the fact that we either agree that all capital punishment is barbaric or none is.",
">\n\nWhere has this twit been?\nIt's a government ordered execution, so...",
">\n\nI mean yeah?",
">\n\nSo it’s an execution.\nGreat job UN rights chief, you are right on the edge of comprehending what executions are.",
">\n\nWay to call ‘em, Chief."
] |
>
Uh, Reuters...
Hate to break it to ya, but that's all executions.
"Do what we want you to or we kill you."
|
[
"Errrr, isn’t that the definition of execution?",
">\n\nI think they mean it as in \"Theyre just murdering people\" vs \"Punishment for crime\"",
">\n\nWhich is again a definition of execution, no? Officially murdering someone over a conviction (whatever it may be)?\nI get what they’re saying. If they wish to argue that these executions are against the law of the country in question, just say so.",
">\n\nPer the definition of murder, if it's lawful it isn't murder.",
">\n\nBut since the Iranian government gave itself the right to carry out the executions that makes it lawful and therefore not murder.",
">\n\nUntil the law is repealed by this goverment or the (obviously needed) new one, capital punishment for \"waging a war on God\" is legal. It isn't like this is a new thing in this backwards country's culture.",
">\n\nI'm not commenting on the culture. Simply on the fact that we either agree that all capital punishment is barbaric or none is.",
">\n\nWhere has this twit been?\nIt's a government ordered execution, so...",
">\n\nI mean yeah?",
">\n\nSo it’s an execution.\nGreat job UN rights chief, you are right on the edge of comprehending what executions are.",
">\n\nWay to call ‘em, Chief.",
">\n\nKinda the point of executing people."
] |
>
Wow those UN guys are really bright and totally not useless at all 👍
|
[
"Errrr, isn’t that the definition of execution?",
">\n\nI think they mean it as in \"Theyre just murdering people\" vs \"Punishment for crime\"",
">\n\nWhich is again a definition of execution, no? Officially murdering someone over a conviction (whatever it may be)?\nI get what they’re saying. If they wish to argue that these executions are against the law of the country in question, just say so.",
">\n\nPer the definition of murder, if it's lawful it isn't murder.",
">\n\nBut since the Iranian government gave itself the right to carry out the executions that makes it lawful and therefore not murder.",
">\n\nUntil the law is repealed by this goverment or the (obviously needed) new one, capital punishment for \"waging a war on God\" is legal. It isn't like this is a new thing in this backwards country's culture.",
">\n\nI'm not commenting on the culture. Simply on the fact that we either agree that all capital punishment is barbaric or none is.",
">\n\nWhere has this twit been?\nIt's a government ordered execution, so...",
">\n\nI mean yeah?",
">\n\nSo it’s an execution.\nGreat job UN rights chief, you are right on the edge of comprehending what executions are.",
">\n\nWay to call ‘em, Chief.",
">\n\nKinda the point of executing people.",
">\n\nUh, Reuters... \nHate to break it to ya, but that's all executions.\n\"Do what we want you to or we kill you.\""
] |
>
Killing people to stay in power.
|
[
"Errrr, isn’t that the definition of execution?",
">\n\nI think they mean it as in \"Theyre just murdering people\" vs \"Punishment for crime\"",
">\n\nWhich is again a definition of execution, no? Officially murdering someone over a conviction (whatever it may be)?\nI get what they’re saying. If they wish to argue that these executions are against the law of the country in question, just say so.",
">\n\nPer the definition of murder, if it's lawful it isn't murder.",
">\n\nBut since the Iranian government gave itself the right to carry out the executions that makes it lawful and therefore not murder.",
">\n\nUntil the law is repealed by this goverment or the (obviously needed) new one, capital punishment for \"waging a war on God\" is legal. It isn't like this is a new thing in this backwards country's culture.",
">\n\nI'm not commenting on the culture. Simply on the fact that we either agree that all capital punishment is barbaric or none is.",
">\n\nWhere has this twit been?\nIt's a government ordered execution, so...",
">\n\nI mean yeah?",
">\n\nSo it’s an execution.\nGreat job UN rights chief, you are right on the edge of comprehending what executions are.",
">\n\nWay to call ‘em, Chief.",
">\n\nKinda the point of executing people.",
">\n\nUh, Reuters... \nHate to break it to ya, but that's all executions.\n\"Do what we want you to or we kill you.\"",
">\n\nWow those UN guys are really bright and totally not useless at all 👍"
] |
>
Khamenei thinks this will discourage protests, but he's just getting people angrier. I hope he has an escape jet fueled up because he'll need to leave the country quickly in the middle of the night.
|
[
"Errrr, isn’t that the definition of execution?",
">\n\nI think they mean it as in \"Theyre just murdering people\" vs \"Punishment for crime\"",
">\n\nWhich is again a definition of execution, no? Officially murdering someone over a conviction (whatever it may be)?\nI get what they’re saying. If they wish to argue that these executions are against the law of the country in question, just say so.",
">\n\nPer the definition of murder, if it's lawful it isn't murder.",
">\n\nBut since the Iranian government gave itself the right to carry out the executions that makes it lawful and therefore not murder.",
">\n\nUntil the law is repealed by this goverment or the (obviously needed) new one, capital punishment for \"waging a war on God\" is legal. It isn't like this is a new thing in this backwards country's culture.",
">\n\nI'm not commenting on the culture. Simply on the fact that we either agree that all capital punishment is barbaric or none is.",
">\n\nWhere has this twit been?\nIt's a government ordered execution, so...",
">\n\nI mean yeah?",
">\n\nSo it’s an execution.\nGreat job UN rights chief, you are right on the edge of comprehending what executions are.",
">\n\nWay to call ‘em, Chief.",
">\n\nKinda the point of executing people.",
">\n\nUh, Reuters... \nHate to break it to ya, but that's all executions.\n\"Do what we want you to or we kill you.\"",
">\n\nWow those UN guys are really bright and totally not useless at all 👍",
">\n\nKilling people to stay in power."
] |
>
I guess the UN rights chief doesn't own a dictionary.
|
[
"Errrr, isn’t that the definition of execution?",
">\n\nI think they mean it as in \"Theyre just murdering people\" vs \"Punishment for crime\"",
">\n\nWhich is again a definition of execution, no? Officially murdering someone over a conviction (whatever it may be)?\nI get what they’re saying. If they wish to argue that these executions are against the law of the country in question, just say so.",
">\n\nPer the definition of murder, if it's lawful it isn't murder.",
">\n\nBut since the Iranian government gave itself the right to carry out the executions that makes it lawful and therefore not murder.",
">\n\nUntil the law is repealed by this goverment or the (obviously needed) new one, capital punishment for \"waging a war on God\" is legal. It isn't like this is a new thing in this backwards country's culture.",
">\n\nI'm not commenting on the culture. Simply on the fact that we either agree that all capital punishment is barbaric or none is.",
">\n\nWhere has this twit been?\nIt's a government ordered execution, so...",
">\n\nI mean yeah?",
">\n\nSo it’s an execution.\nGreat job UN rights chief, you are right on the edge of comprehending what executions are.",
">\n\nWay to call ‘em, Chief.",
">\n\nKinda the point of executing people.",
">\n\nUh, Reuters... \nHate to break it to ya, but that's all executions.\n\"Do what we want you to or we kill you.\"",
">\n\nWow those UN guys are really bright and totally not useless at all 👍",
">\n\nKilling people to stay in power.",
">\n\nKhamenei thinks this will discourage protests, but he's just getting people angrier. I hope he has an escape jet fueled up because he'll need to leave the country quickly in the middle of the night."
] |
>
It’s murder. Murder by a few over the entire population. Iran has to stand up to what are nothing more than old frail men in gowns supported by an army.
|
[
"Errrr, isn’t that the definition of execution?",
">\n\nI think they mean it as in \"Theyre just murdering people\" vs \"Punishment for crime\"",
">\n\nWhich is again a definition of execution, no? Officially murdering someone over a conviction (whatever it may be)?\nI get what they’re saying. If they wish to argue that these executions are against the law of the country in question, just say so.",
">\n\nPer the definition of murder, if it's lawful it isn't murder.",
">\n\nBut since the Iranian government gave itself the right to carry out the executions that makes it lawful and therefore not murder.",
">\n\nUntil the law is repealed by this goverment or the (obviously needed) new one, capital punishment for \"waging a war on God\" is legal. It isn't like this is a new thing in this backwards country's culture.",
">\n\nI'm not commenting on the culture. Simply on the fact that we either agree that all capital punishment is barbaric or none is.",
">\n\nWhere has this twit been?\nIt's a government ordered execution, so...",
">\n\nI mean yeah?",
">\n\nSo it’s an execution.\nGreat job UN rights chief, you are right on the edge of comprehending what executions are.",
">\n\nWay to call ‘em, Chief.",
">\n\nKinda the point of executing people.",
">\n\nUh, Reuters... \nHate to break it to ya, but that's all executions.\n\"Do what we want you to or we kill you.\"",
">\n\nWow those UN guys are really bright and totally not useless at all 👍",
">\n\nKilling people to stay in power.",
">\n\nKhamenei thinks this will discourage protests, but he's just getting people angrier. I hope he has an escape jet fueled up because he'll need to leave the country quickly in the middle of the night.",
">\n\nI guess the UN rights chief doesn't own a dictionary."
] |
>
The problem is those last four words.
|
[
"Errrr, isn’t that the definition of execution?",
">\n\nI think they mean it as in \"Theyre just murdering people\" vs \"Punishment for crime\"",
">\n\nWhich is again a definition of execution, no? Officially murdering someone over a conviction (whatever it may be)?\nI get what they’re saying. If they wish to argue that these executions are against the law of the country in question, just say so.",
">\n\nPer the definition of murder, if it's lawful it isn't murder.",
">\n\nBut since the Iranian government gave itself the right to carry out the executions that makes it lawful and therefore not murder.",
">\n\nUntil the law is repealed by this goverment or the (obviously needed) new one, capital punishment for \"waging a war on God\" is legal. It isn't like this is a new thing in this backwards country's culture.",
">\n\nI'm not commenting on the culture. Simply on the fact that we either agree that all capital punishment is barbaric or none is.",
">\n\nWhere has this twit been?\nIt's a government ordered execution, so...",
">\n\nI mean yeah?",
">\n\nSo it’s an execution.\nGreat job UN rights chief, you are right on the edge of comprehending what executions are.",
">\n\nWay to call ‘em, Chief.",
">\n\nKinda the point of executing people.",
">\n\nUh, Reuters... \nHate to break it to ya, but that's all executions.\n\"Do what we want you to or we kill you.\"",
">\n\nWow those UN guys are really bright and totally not useless at all 👍",
">\n\nKilling people to stay in power.",
">\n\nKhamenei thinks this will discourage protests, but he's just getting people angrier. I hope he has an escape jet fueled up because he'll need to leave the country quickly in the middle of the night.",
">\n\nI guess the UN rights chief doesn't own a dictionary.",
">\n\nIt’s murder. Murder by a few over the entire population. Iran has to stand up to what are nothing more than old frail men in gowns supported by an army."
] |
>
It’s murder. Murder by a few over the entire population. Iran has to stand up to what are nothing more than old frail men in gowns supported by an army.
|
[
"Errrr, isn’t that the definition of execution?",
">\n\nI think they mean it as in \"Theyre just murdering people\" vs \"Punishment for crime\"",
">\n\nWhich is again a definition of execution, no? Officially murdering someone over a conviction (whatever it may be)?\nI get what they’re saying. If they wish to argue that these executions are against the law of the country in question, just say so.",
">\n\nPer the definition of murder, if it's lawful it isn't murder.",
">\n\nBut since the Iranian government gave itself the right to carry out the executions that makes it lawful and therefore not murder.",
">\n\nUntil the law is repealed by this goverment or the (obviously needed) new one, capital punishment for \"waging a war on God\" is legal. It isn't like this is a new thing in this backwards country's culture.",
">\n\nI'm not commenting on the culture. Simply on the fact that we either agree that all capital punishment is barbaric or none is.",
">\n\nWhere has this twit been?\nIt's a government ordered execution, so...",
">\n\nI mean yeah?",
">\n\nSo it’s an execution.\nGreat job UN rights chief, you are right on the edge of comprehending what executions are.",
">\n\nWay to call ‘em, Chief.",
">\n\nKinda the point of executing people.",
">\n\nUh, Reuters... \nHate to break it to ya, but that's all executions.\n\"Do what we want you to or we kill you.\"",
">\n\nWow those UN guys are really bright and totally not useless at all 👍",
">\n\nKilling people to stay in power.",
">\n\nKhamenei thinks this will discourage protests, but he's just getting people angrier. I hope he has an escape jet fueled up because he'll need to leave the country quickly in the middle of the night.",
">\n\nI guess the UN rights chief doesn't own a dictionary.",
">\n\nIt’s murder. Murder by a few over the entire population. Iran has to stand up to what are nothing more than old frail men in gowns supported by an army.",
">\n\nThe problem is those last four words."
] |
>
US executions amount to state-sanctioned killings…
|
[
"Errrr, isn’t that the definition of execution?",
">\n\nI think they mean it as in \"Theyre just murdering people\" vs \"Punishment for crime\"",
">\n\nWhich is again a definition of execution, no? Officially murdering someone over a conviction (whatever it may be)?\nI get what they’re saying. If they wish to argue that these executions are against the law of the country in question, just say so.",
">\n\nPer the definition of murder, if it's lawful it isn't murder.",
">\n\nBut since the Iranian government gave itself the right to carry out the executions that makes it lawful and therefore not murder.",
">\n\nUntil the law is repealed by this goverment or the (obviously needed) new one, capital punishment for \"waging a war on God\" is legal. It isn't like this is a new thing in this backwards country's culture.",
">\n\nI'm not commenting on the culture. Simply on the fact that we either agree that all capital punishment is barbaric or none is.",
">\n\nWhere has this twit been?\nIt's a government ordered execution, so...",
">\n\nI mean yeah?",
">\n\nSo it’s an execution.\nGreat job UN rights chief, you are right on the edge of comprehending what executions are.",
">\n\nWay to call ‘em, Chief.",
">\n\nKinda the point of executing people.",
">\n\nUh, Reuters... \nHate to break it to ya, but that's all executions.\n\"Do what we want you to or we kill you.\"",
">\n\nWow those UN guys are really bright and totally not useless at all 👍",
">\n\nKilling people to stay in power.",
">\n\nKhamenei thinks this will discourage protests, but he's just getting people angrier. I hope he has an escape jet fueled up because he'll need to leave the country quickly in the middle of the night.",
">\n\nI guess the UN rights chief doesn't own a dictionary.",
">\n\nIt’s murder. Murder by a few over the entire population. Iran has to stand up to what are nothing more than old frail men in gowns supported by an army.",
">\n\nThe problem is those last four words.",
">\n\nIt’s murder. Murder by a few over the entire population. Iran has to stand up to what are nothing more than old frail men in gowns supported by an army."
] |
>
All executions are state sanctioned killings. That’s very literally what an execution is.
Hence the mockery, he basically dramatically announced that a circle is round.
|
[
"Errrr, isn’t that the definition of execution?",
">\n\nI think they mean it as in \"Theyre just murdering people\" vs \"Punishment for crime\"",
">\n\nWhich is again a definition of execution, no? Officially murdering someone over a conviction (whatever it may be)?\nI get what they’re saying. If they wish to argue that these executions are against the law of the country in question, just say so.",
">\n\nPer the definition of murder, if it's lawful it isn't murder.",
">\n\nBut since the Iranian government gave itself the right to carry out the executions that makes it lawful and therefore not murder.",
">\n\nUntil the law is repealed by this goverment or the (obviously needed) new one, capital punishment for \"waging a war on God\" is legal. It isn't like this is a new thing in this backwards country's culture.",
">\n\nI'm not commenting on the culture. Simply on the fact that we either agree that all capital punishment is barbaric or none is.",
">\n\nWhere has this twit been?\nIt's a government ordered execution, so...",
">\n\nI mean yeah?",
">\n\nSo it’s an execution.\nGreat job UN rights chief, you are right on the edge of comprehending what executions are.",
">\n\nWay to call ‘em, Chief.",
">\n\nKinda the point of executing people.",
">\n\nUh, Reuters... \nHate to break it to ya, but that's all executions.\n\"Do what we want you to or we kill you.\"",
">\n\nWow those UN guys are really bright and totally not useless at all 👍",
">\n\nKilling people to stay in power.",
">\n\nKhamenei thinks this will discourage protests, but he's just getting people angrier. I hope he has an escape jet fueled up because he'll need to leave the country quickly in the middle of the night.",
">\n\nI guess the UN rights chief doesn't own a dictionary.",
">\n\nIt’s murder. Murder by a few over the entire population. Iran has to stand up to what are nothing more than old frail men in gowns supported by an army.",
">\n\nThe problem is those last four words.",
">\n\nIt’s murder. Murder by a few over the entire population. Iran has to stand up to what are nothing more than old frail men in gowns supported by an army.",
">\n\nUS executions amount to state-sanctioned killings…"
] |
>
How is the death penalty ever anything but state sanctioned killing?
|
[
"Errrr, isn’t that the definition of execution?",
">\n\nI think they mean it as in \"Theyre just murdering people\" vs \"Punishment for crime\"",
">\n\nWhich is again a definition of execution, no? Officially murdering someone over a conviction (whatever it may be)?\nI get what they’re saying. If they wish to argue that these executions are against the law of the country in question, just say so.",
">\n\nPer the definition of murder, if it's lawful it isn't murder.",
">\n\nBut since the Iranian government gave itself the right to carry out the executions that makes it lawful and therefore not murder.",
">\n\nUntil the law is repealed by this goverment or the (obviously needed) new one, capital punishment for \"waging a war on God\" is legal. It isn't like this is a new thing in this backwards country's culture.",
">\n\nI'm not commenting on the culture. Simply on the fact that we either agree that all capital punishment is barbaric or none is.",
">\n\nWhere has this twit been?\nIt's a government ordered execution, so...",
">\n\nI mean yeah?",
">\n\nSo it’s an execution.\nGreat job UN rights chief, you are right on the edge of comprehending what executions are.",
">\n\nWay to call ‘em, Chief.",
">\n\nKinda the point of executing people.",
">\n\nUh, Reuters... \nHate to break it to ya, but that's all executions.\n\"Do what we want you to or we kill you.\"",
">\n\nWow those UN guys are really bright and totally not useless at all 👍",
">\n\nKilling people to stay in power.",
">\n\nKhamenei thinks this will discourage protests, but he's just getting people angrier. I hope he has an escape jet fueled up because he'll need to leave the country quickly in the middle of the night.",
">\n\nI guess the UN rights chief doesn't own a dictionary.",
">\n\nIt’s murder. Murder by a few over the entire population. Iran has to stand up to what are nothing more than old frail men in gowns supported by an army.",
">\n\nThe problem is those last four words.",
">\n\nIt’s murder. Murder by a few over the entire population. Iran has to stand up to what are nothing more than old frail men in gowns supported by an army.",
">\n\nUS executions amount to state-sanctioned killings…",
">\n\nAll executions are state sanctioned killings. That’s very literally what an execution is.\nHence the mockery, he basically dramatically announced that a circle is round."
] |
>
Its literally terrorism
|
[
"Errrr, isn’t that the definition of execution?",
">\n\nI think they mean it as in \"Theyre just murdering people\" vs \"Punishment for crime\"",
">\n\nWhich is again a definition of execution, no? Officially murdering someone over a conviction (whatever it may be)?\nI get what they’re saying. If they wish to argue that these executions are against the law of the country in question, just say so.",
">\n\nPer the definition of murder, if it's lawful it isn't murder.",
">\n\nBut since the Iranian government gave itself the right to carry out the executions that makes it lawful and therefore not murder.",
">\n\nUntil the law is repealed by this goverment or the (obviously needed) new one, capital punishment for \"waging a war on God\" is legal. It isn't like this is a new thing in this backwards country's culture.",
">\n\nI'm not commenting on the culture. Simply on the fact that we either agree that all capital punishment is barbaric or none is.",
">\n\nWhere has this twit been?\nIt's a government ordered execution, so...",
">\n\nI mean yeah?",
">\n\nSo it’s an execution.\nGreat job UN rights chief, you are right on the edge of comprehending what executions are.",
">\n\nWay to call ‘em, Chief.",
">\n\nKinda the point of executing people.",
">\n\nUh, Reuters... \nHate to break it to ya, but that's all executions.\n\"Do what we want you to or we kill you.\"",
">\n\nWow those UN guys are really bright and totally not useless at all 👍",
">\n\nKilling people to stay in power.",
">\n\nKhamenei thinks this will discourage protests, but he's just getting people angrier. I hope he has an escape jet fueled up because he'll need to leave the country quickly in the middle of the night.",
">\n\nI guess the UN rights chief doesn't own a dictionary.",
">\n\nIt’s murder. Murder by a few over the entire population. Iran has to stand up to what are nothing more than old frail men in gowns supported by an army.",
">\n\nThe problem is those last four words.",
">\n\nIt’s murder. Murder by a few over the entire population. Iran has to stand up to what are nothing more than old frail men in gowns supported by an army.",
">\n\nUS executions amount to state-sanctioned killings…",
">\n\nAll executions are state sanctioned killings. That’s very literally what an execution is.\nHence the mockery, he basically dramatically announced that a circle is round.",
">\n\nHow is the death penalty ever anything but state sanctioned killing?"
] |
>
We should therefore be able to take Iran and it's leaders to the ICC.
|
[
"Errrr, isn’t that the definition of execution?",
">\n\nI think they mean it as in \"Theyre just murdering people\" vs \"Punishment for crime\"",
">\n\nWhich is again a definition of execution, no? Officially murdering someone over a conviction (whatever it may be)?\nI get what they’re saying. If they wish to argue that these executions are against the law of the country in question, just say so.",
">\n\nPer the definition of murder, if it's lawful it isn't murder.",
">\n\nBut since the Iranian government gave itself the right to carry out the executions that makes it lawful and therefore not murder.",
">\n\nUntil the law is repealed by this goverment or the (obviously needed) new one, capital punishment for \"waging a war on God\" is legal. It isn't like this is a new thing in this backwards country's culture.",
">\n\nI'm not commenting on the culture. Simply on the fact that we either agree that all capital punishment is barbaric or none is.",
">\n\nWhere has this twit been?\nIt's a government ordered execution, so...",
">\n\nI mean yeah?",
">\n\nSo it’s an execution.\nGreat job UN rights chief, you are right on the edge of comprehending what executions are.",
">\n\nWay to call ‘em, Chief.",
">\n\nKinda the point of executing people.",
">\n\nUh, Reuters... \nHate to break it to ya, but that's all executions.\n\"Do what we want you to or we kill you.\"",
">\n\nWow those UN guys are really bright and totally not useless at all 👍",
">\n\nKilling people to stay in power.",
">\n\nKhamenei thinks this will discourage protests, but he's just getting people angrier. I hope he has an escape jet fueled up because he'll need to leave the country quickly in the middle of the night.",
">\n\nI guess the UN rights chief doesn't own a dictionary.",
">\n\nIt’s murder. Murder by a few over the entire population. Iran has to stand up to what are nothing more than old frail men in gowns supported by an army.",
">\n\nThe problem is those last four words.",
">\n\nIt’s murder. Murder by a few over the entire population. Iran has to stand up to what are nothing more than old frail men in gowns supported by an army.",
">\n\nUS executions amount to state-sanctioned killings…",
">\n\nAll executions are state sanctioned killings. That’s very literally what an execution is.\nHence the mockery, he basically dramatically announced that a circle is round.",
">\n\nHow is the death penalty ever anything but state sanctioned killing?",
">\n\nIts literally terrorism"
] |
>
State sanctioned? Isn't that when the state turns a blind eye to extrajudicial killings?
This ain't that; this is worse.
|
[
"Errrr, isn’t that the definition of execution?",
">\n\nI think they mean it as in \"Theyre just murdering people\" vs \"Punishment for crime\"",
">\n\nWhich is again a definition of execution, no? Officially murdering someone over a conviction (whatever it may be)?\nI get what they’re saying. If they wish to argue that these executions are against the law of the country in question, just say so.",
">\n\nPer the definition of murder, if it's lawful it isn't murder.",
">\n\nBut since the Iranian government gave itself the right to carry out the executions that makes it lawful and therefore not murder.",
">\n\nUntil the law is repealed by this goverment or the (obviously needed) new one, capital punishment for \"waging a war on God\" is legal. It isn't like this is a new thing in this backwards country's culture.",
">\n\nI'm not commenting on the culture. Simply on the fact that we either agree that all capital punishment is barbaric or none is.",
">\n\nWhere has this twit been?\nIt's a government ordered execution, so...",
">\n\nI mean yeah?",
">\n\nSo it’s an execution.\nGreat job UN rights chief, you are right on the edge of comprehending what executions are.",
">\n\nWay to call ‘em, Chief.",
">\n\nKinda the point of executing people.",
">\n\nUh, Reuters... \nHate to break it to ya, but that's all executions.\n\"Do what we want you to or we kill you.\"",
">\n\nWow those UN guys are really bright and totally not useless at all 👍",
">\n\nKilling people to stay in power.",
">\n\nKhamenei thinks this will discourage protests, but he's just getting people angrier. I hope he has an escape jet fueled up because he'll need to leave the country quickly in the middle of the night.",
">\n\nI guess the UN rights chief doesn't own a dictionary.",
">\n\nIt’s murder. Murder by a few over the entire population. Iran has to stand up to what are nothing more than old frail men in gowns supported by an army.",
">\n\nThe problem is those last four words.",
">\n\nIt’s murder. Murder by a few over the entire population. Iran has to stand up to what are nothing more than old frail men in gowns supported by an army.",
">\n\nUS executions amount to state-sanctioned killings…",
">\n\nAll executions are state sanctioned killings. That’s very literally what an execution is.\nHence the mockery, he basically dramatically announced that a circle is round.",
">\n\nHow is the death penalty ever anything but state sanctioned killing?",
">\n\nIts literally terrorism",
">\n\nWe should therefore be able to take Iran and it's leaders to the ICC."
] |
>
Yes. That's what executions and the death penalty is.
|
[
"Errrr, isn’t that the definition of execution?",
">\n\nI think they mean it as in \"Theyre just murdering people\" vs \"Punishment for crime\"",
">\n\nWhich is again a definition of execution, no? Officially murdering someone over a conviction (whatever it may be)?\nI get what they’re saying. If they wish to argue that these executions are against the law of the country in question, just say so.",
">\n\nPer the definition of murder, if it's lawful it isn't murder.",
">\n\nBut since the Iranian government gave itself the right to carry out the executions that makes it lawful and therefore not murder.",
">\n\nUntil the law is repealed by this goverment or the (obviously needed) new one, capital punishment for \"waging a war on God\" is legal. It isn't like this is a new thing in this backwards country's culture.",
">\n\nI'm not commenting on the culture. Simply on the fact that we either agree that all capital punishment is barbaric or none is.",
">\n\nWhere has this twit been?\nIt's a government ordered execution, so...",
">\n\nI mean yeah?",
">\n\nSo it’s an execution.\nGreat job UN rights chief, you are right on the edge of comprehending what executions are.",
">\n\nWay to call ‘em, Chief.",
">\n\nKinda the point of executing people.",
">\n\nUh, Reuters... \nHate to break it to ya, but that's all executions.\n\"Do what we want you to or we kill you.\"",
">\n\nWow those UN guys are really bright and totally not useless at all 👍",
">\n\nKilling people to stay in power.",
">\n\nKhamenei thinks this will discourage protests, but he's just getting people angrier. I hope he has an escape jet fueled up because he'll need to leave the country quickly in the middle of the night.",
">\n\nI guess the UN rights chief doesn't own a dictionary.",
">\n\nIt’s murder. Murder by a few over the entire population. Iran has to stand up to what are nothing more than old frail men in gowns supported by an army.",
">\n\nThe problem is those last four words.",
">\n\nIt’s murder. Murder by a few over the entire population. Iran has to stand up to what are nothing more than old frail men in gowns supported by an army.",
">\n\nUS executions amount to state-sanctioned killings…",
">\n\nAll executions are state sanctioned killings. That’s very literally what an execution is.\nHence the mockery, he basically dramatically announced that a circle is round.",
">\n\nHow is the death penalty ever anything but state sanctioned killing?",
">\n\nIts literally terrorism",
">\n\nWe should therefore be able to take Iran and it's leaders to the ICC.",
">\n\nState sanctioned? Isn't that when the state turns a blind eye to extrajudicial killings?\nThis ain't that; this is worse."
] |
>
Thanks Captain Obvious
|
[
"Errrr, isn’t that the definition of execution?",
">\n\nI think they mean it as in \"Theyre just murdering people\" vs \"Punishment for crime\"",
">\n\nWhich is again a definition of execution, no? Officially murdering someone over a conviction (whatever it may be)?\nI get what they’re saying. If they wish to argue that these executions are against the law of the country in question, just say so.",
">\n\nPer the definition of murder, if it's lawful it isn't murder.",
">\n\nBut since the Iranian government gave itself the right to carry out the executions that makes it lawful and therefore not murder.",
">\n\nUntil the law is repealed by this goverment or the (obviously needed) new one, capital punishment for \"waging a war on God\" is legal. It isn't like this is a new thing in this backwards country's culture.",
">\n\nI'm not commenting on the culture. Simply on the fact that we either agree that all capital punishment is barbaric or none is.",
">\n\nWhere has this twit been?\nIt's a government ordered execution, so...",
">\n\nI mean yeah?",
">\n\nSo it’s an execution.\nGreat job UN rights chief, you are right on the edge of comprehending what executions are.",
">\n\nWay to call ‘em, Chief.",
">\n\nKinda the point of executing people.",
">\n\nUh, Reuters... \nHate to break it to ya, but that's all executions.\n\"Do what we want you to or we kill you.\"",
">\n\nWow those UN guys are really bright and totally not useless at all 👍",
">\n\nKilling people to stay in power.",
">\n\nKhamenei thinks this will discourage protests, but he's just getting people angrier. I hope he has an escape jet fueled up because he'll need to leave the country quickly in the middle of the night.",
">\n\nI guess the UN rights chief doesn't own a dictionary.",
">\n\nIt’s murder. Murder by a few over the entire population. Iran has to stand up to what are nothing more than old frail men in gowns supported by an army.",
">\n\nThe problem is those last four words.",
">\n\nIt’s murder. Murder by a few over the entire population. Iran has to stand up to what are nothing more than old frail men in gowns supported by an army.",
">\n\nUS executions amount to state-sanctioned killings…",
">\n\nAll executions are state sanctioned killings. That’s very literally what an execution is.\nHence the mockery, he basically dramatically announced that a circle is round.",
">\n\nHow is the death penalty ever anything but state sanctioned killing?",
">\n\nIts literally terrorism",
">\n\nWe should therefore be able to take Iran and it's leaders to the ICC.",
">\n\nState sanctioned? Isn't that when the state turns a blind eye to extrajudicial killings?\nThis ain't that; this is worse.",
">\n\nYes. That's what executions and the death penalty is."
] |
>
|
[
"Errrr, isn’t that the definition of execution?",
">\n\nI think they mean it as in \"Theyre just murdering people\" vs \"Punishment for crime\"",
">\n\nWhich is again a definition of execution, no? Officially murdering someone over a conviction (whatever it may be)?\nI get what they’re saying. If they wish to argue that these executions are against the law of the country in question, just say so.",
">\n\nPer the definition of murder, if it's lawful it isn't murder.",
">\n\nBut since the Iranian government gave itself the right to carry out the executions that makes it lawful and therefore not murder.",
">\n\nUntil the law is repealed by this goverment or the (obviously needed) new one, capital punishment for \"waging a war on God\" is legal. It isn't like this is a new thing in this backwards country's culture.",
">\n\nI'm not commenting on the culture. Simply on the fact that we either agree that all capital punishment is barbaric or none is.",
">\n\nWhere has this twit been?\nIt's a government ordered execution, so...",
">\n\nI mean yeah?",
">\n\nSo it’s an execution.\nGreat job UN rights chief, you are right on the edge of comprehending what executions are.",
">\n\nWay to call ‘em, Chief.",
">\n\nKinda the point of executing people.",
">\n\nUh, Reuters... \nHate to break it to ya, but that's all executions.\n\"Do what we want you to or we kill you.\"",
">\n\nWow those UN guys are really bright and totally not useless at all 👍",
">\n\nKilling people to stay in power.",
">\n\nKhamenei thinks this will discourage protests, but he's just getting people angrier. I hope he has an escape jet fueled up because he'll need to leave the country quickly in the middle of the night.",
">\n\nI guess the UN rights chief doesn't own a dictionary.",
">\n\nIt’s murder. Murder by a few over the entire population. Iran has to stand up to what are nothing more than old frail men in gowns supported by an army.",
">\n\nThe problem is those last four words.",
">\n\nIt’s murder. Murder by a few over the entire population. Iran has to stand up to what are nothing more than old frail men in gowns supported by an army.",
">\n\nUS executions amount to state-sanctioned killings…",
">\n\nAll executions are state sanctioned killings. That’s very literally what an execution is.\nHence the mockery, he basically dramatically announced that a circle is round.",
">\n\nHow is the death penalty ever anything but state sanctioned killing?",
">\n\nIts literally terrorism",
">\n\nWe should therefore be able to take Iran and it's leaders to the ICC.",
">\n\nState sanctioned? Isn't that when the state turns a blind eye to extrajudicial killings?\nThis ain't that; this is worse.",
">\n\nYes. That's what executions and the death penalty is.",
">\n\nThanks Captain Obvious"
] |
Top: Filco Majestouch-2 in TEX Acrylic TKL case, stock MX Blacks and SA Navy :)
Bottom: Ninja 87, lubed MX Zilents, SA Hyperfuse mods / SA Symbiosis 2.0 alphas + random round6 caps & idea23 artisans
|
[] |
>
|
[
"Top: Filco Majestouch-2 in TEX Acrylic TKL case, stock MX Blacks and SA Navy :)\nBottom: Ninja 87, lubed MX Zilents, SA Hyperfuse mods / SA Symbiosis 2.0 alphas + random round6 caps & idea23 artisans"
] |
Includes rule that all bills must be available to read 72 hours before the vote. Also includes last-minute addition containing the final concessions given to the Freedom Caucus that only the handful of people that wrote it got to see before voting on it.
|
[] |
>
While simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.
Read Section 5.
|
[
"Includes rule that all bills must be available to read 72 hours before the vote. Also includes last-minute addition containing the final concessions given to the Freedom Caucus that only the handful of people that wrote it got to see before voting on it."
] |
>
Read Section 5.
Could you explain? I am trying to get this, but so far my reading of the rules package indicates that the new 72 hour rule only applies to Calendar Wednesday described in Clause 6(a) of rule XV. You say there is something that effects this under "section 5". Clause 5 of rule XV talks about the "Private Calendar" so this isn't the section 5 you are talking about.
|
[
"Includes rule that all bills must be available to read 72 hours before the vote. Also includes last-minute addition containing the final concessions given to the Freedom Caucus that only the handful of people that wrote it got to see before voting on it.",
">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5."
] |
>
Section 5, which starts on page 50 of the rules package will move into immediately passing 10 (exact count) bills and 2 concurrent resolutions that will not be read, all points of contention on the bills are waived, and only an hour debate split between parties for each.
|
[
"Includes rule that all bills must be available to read 72 hours before the vote. Also includes last-minute addition containing the final concessions given to the Freedom Caucus that only the handful of people that wrote it got to see before voting on it.",
">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.",
">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould you explain? I am trying to get this, but so far my reading of the rules package indicates that the new 72 hour rule only applies to Calendar Wednesday described in Clause 6(a) of rule XV. You say there is something that effects this under \"section 5\". Clause 5 of rule XV talks about the \"Private Calendar\" so this isn't the section 5 you are talking about."
] |
>
that will not be read
The wording "shall be considered as read" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.
all points of contention on the bills are waived
All points of order against the bills are waived. This is standard for special rules like this. Otherwise, what would be the point of using special rules?
only an hour of debate split between parties
Sometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.
You seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.
|
[
"Includes rule that all bills must be available to read 72 hours before the vote. Also includes last-minute addition containing the final concessions given to the Freedom Caucus that only the handful of people that wrote it got to see before voting on it.",
">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.",
">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould you explain? I am trying to get this, but so far my reading of the rules package indicates that the new 72 hour rule only applies to Calendar Wednesday described in Clause 6(a) of rule XV. You say there is something that effects this under \"section 5\". Clause 5 of rule XV talks about the \"Private Calendar\" so this isn't the section 5 you are talking about.",
">\n\nSection 5, which starts on page 50 of the rules package will move into immediately passing 10 (exact count) bills and 2 concurrent resolutions that will not be read, all points of contention on the bills are waived, and only an hour debate split between parties for each."
] |
>
That may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.
I haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.
|
[
"Includes rule that all bills must be available to read 72 hours before the vote. Also includes last-minute addition containing the final concessions given to the Freedom Caucus that only the handful of people that wrote it got to see before voting on it.",
">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.",
">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould you explain? I am trying to get this, but so far my reading of the rules package indicates that the new 72 hour rule only applies to Calendar Wednesday described in Clause 6(a) of rule XV. You say there is something that effects this under \"section 5\". Clause 5 of rule XV talks about the \"Private Calendar\" so this isn't the section 5 you are talking about.",
">\n\nSection 5, which starts on page 50 of the rules package will move into immediately passing 10 (exact count) bills and 2 concurrent resolutions that will not be read, all points of contention on the bills are waived, and only an hour debate split between parties for each.",
">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll points of order against the bills are waived. This is standard for special rules like this. Otherwise, what would be the point of using special rules?\n\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used."
] |
>
I liked my life better when I was in my early 20’s and didn’t care about politics. Now, I just realize what a shit show this life really is.
|
[
"Includes rule that all bills must be available to read 72 hours before the vote. Also includes last-minute addition containing the final concessions given to the Freedom Caucus that only the handful of people that wrote it got to see before voting on it.",
">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.",
">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould you explain? I am trying to get this, but so far my reading of the rules package indicates that the new 72 hour rule only applies to Calendar Wednesday described in Clause 6(a) of rule XV. You say there is something that effects this under \"section 5\". Clause 5 of rule XV talks about the \"Private Calendar\" so this isn't the section 5 you are talking about.",
">\n\nSection 5, which starts on page 50 of the rules package will move into immediately passing 10 (exact count) bills and 2 concurrent resolutions that will not be read, all points of contention on the bills are waived, and only an hour debate split between parties for each.",
">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll points of order against the bills are waived. This is standard for special rules like this. Otherwise, what would be the point of using special rules?\n\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.",
">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package."
] |
>
The good news is that you can be part of the solution now. And you're not alone. There were a ton of young voters turning out for the election last year.
|
[
"Includes rule that all bills must be available to read 72 hours before the vote. Also includes last-minute addition containing the final concessions given to the Freedom Caucus that only the handful of people that wrote it got to see before voting on it.",
">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.",
">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould you explain? I am trying to get this, but so far my reading of the rules package indicates that the new 72 hour rule only applies to Calendar Wednesday described in Clause 6(a) of rule XV. You say there is something that effects this under \"section 5\". Clause 5 of rule XV talks about the \"Private Calendar\" so this isn't the section 5 you are talking about.",
">\n\nSection 5, which starts on page 50 of the rules package will move into immediately passing 10 (exact count) bills and 2 concurrent resolutions that will not be read, all points of contention on the bills are waived, and only an hour debate split between parties for each.",
">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll points of order against the bills are waived. This is standard for special rules like this. Otherwise, what would be the point of using special rules?\n\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.",
">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.",
">\n\nI liked my life better when I was in my early 20’s and didn’t care about politics. Now, I just realize what a shit show this life really is."
] |
>
How? I’ve voted for the party that is promised to “solve” these problems in the last 3 elections and will continue to do so. It’s not a solution. Contributing to a stalemate is just beating your head against a wall. Voting means nothing in this country with gerrymandering and the electoral college. Not to mention voting for either party really just locks us into slow churning dysfunctional partisan politics at the congressional level.
|
[
"Includes rule that all bills must be available to read 72 hours before the vote. Also includes last-minute addition containing the final concessions given to the Freedom Caucus that only the handful of people that wrote it got to see before voting on it.",
">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.",
">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould you explain? I am trying to get this, but so far my reading of the rules package indicates that the new 72 hour rule only applies to Calendar Wednesday described in Clause 6(a) of rule XV. You say there is something that effects this under \"section 5\". Clause 5 of rule XV talks about the \"Private Calendar\" so this isn't the section 5 you are talking about.",
">\n\nSection 5, which starts on page 50 of the rules package will move into immediately passing 10 (exact count) bills and 2 concurrent resolutions that will not be read, all points of contention on the bills are waived, and only an hour debate split between parties for each.",
">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll points of order against the bills are waived. This is standard for special rules like this. Otherwise, what would be the point of using special rules?\n\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.",
">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.",
">\n\nI liked my life better when I was in my early 20’s and didn’t care about politics. Now, I just realize what a shit show this life really is.",
">\n\nThe good news is that you can be part of the solution now. And you're not alone. There were a ton of young voters turning out for the election last year."
] |
>
Unfortunately, people have to keep voting until Democrats have a super majority in the Senate, and there are more progressives in their party to hold them accountable, if they want to see any meaningful change. That’s probably going to take a decade of consistently voting blue. This goes down the ballot to local state legislators. The only reason Republicans have control of the house is because of Gerrymandering in Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Tennessee, etc. State legislatures are the ones drawing the maps. Progress is slow, but taking away progress is relatively quick.
|
[
"Includes rule that all bills must be available to read 72 hours before the vote. Also includes last-minute addition containing the final concessions given to the Freedom Caucus that only the handful of people that wrote it got to see before voting on it.",
">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.",
">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould you explain? I am trying to get this, but so far my reading of the rules package indicates that the new 72 hour rule only applies to Calendar Wednesday described in Clause 6(a) of rule XV. You say there is something that effects this under \"section 5\". Clause 5 of rule XV talks about the \"Private Calendar\" so this isn't the section 5 you are talking about.",
">\n\nSection 5, which starts on page 50 of the rules package will move into immediately passing 10 (exact count) bills and 2 concurrent resolutions that will not be read, all points of contention on the bills are waived, and only an hour debate split between parties for each.",
">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll points of order against the bills are waived. This is standard for special rules like this. Otherwise, what would be the point of using special rules?\n\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.",
">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.",
">\n\nI liked my life better when I was in my early 20’s and didn’t care about politics. Now, I just realize what a shit show this life really is.",
">\n\nThe good news is that you can be part of the solution now. And you're not alone. There were a ton of young voters turning out for the election last year.",
">\n\nHow? I’ve voted for the party that is promised to “solve” these problems in the last 3 elections and will continue to do so. It’s not a solution. Contributing to a stalemate is just beating your head against a wall. Voting means nothing in this country with gerrymandering and the electoral college. Not to mention voting for either party really just locks us into slow churning dysfunctional partisan politics at the congressional level."
] |
>
That's ironic, given it was CSPAN in the house chambers that led to these clowns even getting a platform in the first place (Gingrich used to give speeches to an empty house late at night because he knew people could still watch him on CSPAN).
edit: Although this is not an end to CSPAN's broadcasting of the house - they just have to rely on the feed that the house provides rather than their own crews and cameras.
|
[
"Includes rule that all bills must be available to read 72 hours before the vote. Also includes last-minute addition containing the final concessions given to the Freedom Caucus that only the handful of people that wrote it got to see before voting on it.",
">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.",
">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould you explain? I am trying to get this, but so far my reading of the rules package indicates that the new 72 hour rule only applies to Calendar Wednesday described in Clause 6(a) of rule XV. You say there is something that effects this under \"section 5\". Clause 5 of rule XV talks about the \"Private Calendar\" so this isn't the section 5 you are talking about.",
">\n\nSection 5, which starts on page 50 of the rules package will move into immediately passing 10 (exact count) bills and 2 concurrent resolutions that will not be read, all points of contention on the bills are waived, and only an hour debate split between parties for each.",
">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll points of order against the bills are waived. This is standard for special rules like this. Otherwise, what would be the point of using special rules?\n\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.",
">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.",
">\n\nI liked my life better when I was in my early 20’s and didn’t care about politics. Now, I just realize what a shit show this life really is.",
">\n\nThe good news is that you can be part of the solution now. And you're not alone. There were a ton of young voters turning out for the election last year.",
">\n\nHow? I’ve voted for the party that is promised to “solve” these problems in the last 3 elections and will continue to do so. It’s not a solution. Contributing to a stalemate is just beating your head against a wall. Voting means nothing in this country with gerrymandering and the electoral college. Not to mention voting for either party really just locks us into slow churning dysfunctional partisan politics at the congressional level.",
">\n\nUnfortunately, people have to keep voting until Democrats have a super majority in the Senate, and there are more progressives in their party to hold them accountable, if they want to see any meaningful change. That’s probably going to take a decade of consistently voting blue. This goes down the ballot to local state legislators. The only reason Republicans have control of the house is because of Gerrymandering in Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Tennessee, etc. State legislatures are the ones drawing the maps. Progress is slow, but taking away progress is relatively quick."
] |
>
Which, in all honesty is how they've operated for decades. This isn't in anyway new or partisan. We just got some cool footage due to there being no rules package until the speaker could get one voted on.
|
[
"Includes rule that all bills must be available to read 72 hours before the vote. Also includes last-minute addition containing the final concessions given to the Freedom Caucus that only the handful of people that wrote it got to see before voting on it.",
">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.",
">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould you explain? I am trying to get this, but so far my reading of the rules package indicates that the new 72 hour rule only applies to Calendar Wednesday described in Clause 6(a) of rule XV. You say there is something that effects this under \"section 5\". Clause 5 of rule XV talks about the \"Private Calendar\" so this isn't the section 5 you are talking about.",
">\n\nSection 5, which starts on page 50 of the rules package will move into immediately passing 10 (exact count) bills and 2 concurrent resolutions that will not be read, all points of contention on the bills are waived, and only an hour debate split between parties for each.",
">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll points of order against the bills are waived. This is standard for special rules like this. Otherwise, what would be the point of using special rules?\n\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.",
">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.",
">\n\nI liked my life better when I was in my early 20’s and didn’t care about politics. Now, I just realize what a shit show this life really is.",
">\n\nThe good news is that you can be part of the solution now. And you're not alone. There were a ton of young voters turning out for the election last year.",
">\n\nHow? I’ve voted for the party that is promised to “solve” these problems in the last 3 elections and will continue to do so. It’s not a solution. Contributing to a stalemate is just beating your head against a wall. Voting means nothing in this country with gerrymandering and the electoral college. Not to mention voting for either party really just locks us into slow churning dysfunctional partisan politics at the congressional level.",
">\n\nUnfortunately, people have to keep voting until Democrats have a super majority in the Senate, and there are more progressives in their party to hold them accountable, if they want to see any meaningful change. That’s probably going to take a decade of consistently voting blue. This goes down the ballot to local state legislators. The only reason Republicans have control of the house is because of Gerrymandering in Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Tennessee, etc. State legislatures are the ones drawing the maps. Progress is slow, but taking away progress is relatively quick.",
">\n\nThat's ironic, given it was CSPAN in the house chambers that led to these clowns even getting a platform in the first place (Gingrich used to give speeches to an empty house late at night because he knew people could still watch him on CSPAN).\nedit: Although this is not an end to CSPAN's broadcasting of the house - they just have to rely on the feed that the house provides rather than their own crews and cameras."
] |
>
Thank you, I did not know that!
|
[
"Includes rule that all bills must be available to read 72 hours before the vote. Also includes last-minute addition containing the final concessions given to the Freedom Caucus that only the handful of people that wrote it got to see before voting on it.",
">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.",
">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould you explain? I am trying to get this, but so far my reading of the rules package indicates that the new 72 hour rule only applies to Calendar Wednesday described in Clause 6(a) of rule XV. You say there is something that effects this under \"section 5\". Clause 5 of rule XV talks about the \"Private Calendar\" so this isn't the section 5 you are talking about.",
">\n\nSection 5, which starts on page 50 of the rules package will move into immediately passing 10 (exact count) bills and 2 concurrent resolutions that will not be read, all points of contention on the bills are waived, and only an hour debate split between parties for each.",
">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll points of order against the bills are waived. This is standard for special rules like this. Otherwise, what would be the point of using special rules?\n\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.",
">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.",
">\n\nI liked my life better when I was in my early 20’s and didn’t care about politics. Now, I just realize what a shit show this life really is.",
">\n\nThe good news is that you can be part of the solution now. And you're not alone. There were a ton of young voters turning out for the election last year.",
">\n\nHow? I’ve voted for the party that is promised to “solve” these problems in the last 3 elections and will continue to do so. It’s not a solution. Contributing to a stalemate is just beating your head against a wall. Voting means nothing in this country with gerrymandering and the electoral college. Not to mention voting for either party really just locks us into slow churning dysfunctional partisan politics at the congressional level.",
">\n\nUnfortunately, people have to keep voting until Democrats have a super majority in the Senate, and there are more progressives in their party to hold them accountable, if they want to see any meaningful change. That’s probably going to take a decade of consistently voting blue. This goes down the ballot to local state legislators. The only reason Republicans have control of the house is because of Gerrymandering in Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Tennessee, etc. State legislatures are the ones drawing the maps. Progress is slow, but taking away progress is relatively quick.",
">\n\nThat's ironic, given it was CSPAN in the house chambers that led to these clowns even getting a platform in the first place (Gingrich used to give speeches to an empty house late at night because he knew people could still watch him on CSPAN).\nedit: Although this is not an end to CSPAN's broadcasting of the house - they just have to rely on the feed that the house provides rather than their own crews and cameras.",
">\n\nWhich, in all honesty is how they've operated for decades. This isn't in anyway new or partisan. We just got some cool footage due to there being no rules package until the speaker could get one voted on."
] |
>
Yea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.
|
[
"Includes rule that all bills must be available to read 72 hours before the vote. Also includes last-minute addition containing the final concessions given to the Freedom Caucus that only the handful of people that wrote it got to see before voting on it.",
">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.",
">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould you explain? I am trying to get this, but so far my reading of the rules package indicates that the new 72 hour rule only applies to Calendar Wednesday described in Clause 6(a) of rule XV. You say there is something that effects this under \"section 5\". Clause 5 of rule XV talks about the \"Private Calendar\" so this isn't the section 5 you are talking about.",
">\n\nSection 5, which starts on page 50 of the rules package will move into immediately passing 10 (exact count) bills and 2 concurrent resolutions that will not be read, all points of contention on the bills are waived, and only an hour debate split between parties for each.",
">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll points of order against the bills are waived. This is standard for special rules like this. Otherwise, what would be the point of using special rules?\n\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.",
">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.",
">\n\nI liked my life better when I was in my early 20’s and didn’t care about politics. Now, I just realize what a shit show this life really is.",
">\n\nThe good news is that you can be part of the solution now. And you're not alone. There were a ton of young voters turning out for the election last year.",
">\n\nHow? I’ve voted for the party that is promised to “solve” these problems in the last 3 elections and will continue to do so. It’s not a solution. Contributing to a stalemate is just beating your head against a wall. Voting means nothing in this country with gerrymandering and the electoral college. Not to mention voting for either party really just locks us into slow churning dysfunctional partisan politics at the congressional level.",
">\n\nUnfortunately, people have to keep voting until Democrats have a super majority in the Senate, and there are more progressives in their party to hold them accountable, if they want to see any meaningful change. That’s probably going to take a decade of consistently voting blue. This goes down the ballot to local state legislators. The only reason Republicans have control of the house is because of Gerrymandering in Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Tennessee, etc. State legislatures are the ones drawing the maps. Progress is slow, but taking away progress is relatively quick.",
">\n\nThat's ironic, given it was CSPAN in the house chambers that led to these clowns even getting a platform in the first place (Gingrich used to give speeches to an empty house late at night because he knew people could still watch him on CSPAN).\nedit: Although this is not an end to CSPAN's broadcasting of the house - they just have to rely on the feed that the house provides rather than their own crews and cameras.",
">\n\nWhich, in all honesty is how they've operated for decades. This isn't in anyway new or partisan. We just got some cool footage due to there being no rules package until the speaker could get one voted on.",
">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!"
] |
>
I didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube
|
[
"Includes rule that all bills must be available to read 72 hours before the vote. Also includes last-minute addition containing the final concessions given to the Freedom Caucus that only the handful of people that wrote it got to see before voting on it.",
">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.",
">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould you explain? I am trying to get this, but so far my reading of the rules package indicates that the new 72 hour rule only applies to Calendar Wednesday described in Clause 6(a) of rule XV. You say there is something that effects this under \"section 5\". Clause 5 of rule XV talks about the \"Private Calendar\" so this isn't the section 5 you are talking about.",
">\n\nSection 5, which starts on page 50 of the rules package will move into immediately passing 10 (exact count) bills and 2 concurrent resolutions that will not be read, all points of contention on the bills are waived, and only an hour debate split between parties for each.",
">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll points of order against the bills are waived. This is standard for special rules like this. Otherwise, what would be the point of using special rules?\n\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.",
">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.",
">\n\nI liked my life better when I was in my early 20’s and didn’t care about politics. Now, I just realize what a shit show this life really is.",
">\n\nThe good news is that you can be part of the solution now. And you're not alone. There were a ton of young voters turning out for the election last year.",
">\n\nHow? I’ve voted for the party that is promised to “solve” these problems in the last 3 elections and will continue to do so. It’s not a solution. Contributing to a stalemate is just beating your head against a wall. Voting means nothing in this country with gerrymandering and the electoral college. Not to mention voting for either party really just locks us into slow churning dysfunctional partisan politics at the congressional level.",
">\n\nUnfortunately, people have to keep voting until Democrats have a super majority in the Senate, and there are more progressives in their party to hold them accountable, if they want to see any meaningful change. That’s probably going to take a decade of consistently voting blue. This goes down the ballot to local state legislators. The only reason Republicans have control of the house is because of Gerrymandering in Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Tennessee, etc. State legislatures are the ones drawing the maps. Progress is slow, but taking away progress is relatively quick.",
">\n\nThat's ironic, given it was CSPAN in the house chambers that led to these clowns even getting a platform in the first place (Gingrich used to give speeches to an empty house late at night because he knew people could still watch him on CSPAN).\nedit: Although this is not an end to CSPAN's broadcasting of the house - they just have to rely on the feed that the house provides rather than their own crews and cameras.",
">\n\nWhich, in all honesty is how they've operated for decades. This isn't in anyway new or partisan. We just got some cool footage due to there being no rules package until the speaker could get one voted on.",
">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!",
">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside."
] |
>
I was watching on youtube
|
[
"Includes rule that all bills must be available to read 72 hours before the vote. Also includes last-minute addition containing the final concessions given to the Freedom Caucus that only the handful of people that wrote it got to see before voting on it.",
">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.",
">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould you explain? I am trying to get this, but so far my reading of the rules package indicates that the new 72 hour rule only applies to Calendar Wednesday described in Clause 6(a) of rule XV. You say there is something that effects this under \"section 5\". Clause 5 of rule XV talks about the \"Private Calendar\" so this isn't the section 5 you are talking about.",
">\n\nSection 5, which starts on page 50 of the rules package will move into immediately passing 10 (exact count) bills and 2 concurrent resolutions that will not be read, all points of contention on the bills are waived, and only an hour debate split between parties for each.",
">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll points of order against the bills are waived. This is standard for special rules like this. Otherwise, what would be the point of using special rules?\n\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.",
">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.",
">\n\nI liked my life better when I was in my early 20’s and didn’t care about politics. Now, I just realize what a shit show this life really is.",
">\n\nThe good news is that you can be part of the solution now. And you're not alone. There were a ton of young voters turning out for the election last year.",
">\n\nHow? I’ve voted for the party that is promised to “solve” these problems in the last 3 elections and will continue to do so. It’s not a solution. Contributing to a stalemate is just beating your head against a wall. Voting means nothing in this country with gerrymandering and the electoral college. Not to mention voting for either party really just locks us into slow churning dysfunctional partisan politics at the congressional level.",
">\n\nUnfortunately, people have to keep voting until Democrats have a super majority in the Senate, and there are more progressives in their party to hold them accountable, if they want to see any meaningful change. That’s probably going to take a decade of consistently voting blue. This goes down the ballot to local state legislators. The only reason Republicans have control of the house is because of Gerrymandering in Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Tennessee, etc. State legislatures are the ones drawing the maps. Progress is slow, but taking away progress is relatively quick.",
">\n\nThat's ironic, given it was CSPAN in the house chambers that led to these clowns even getting a platform in the first place (Gingrich used to give speeches to an empty house late at night because he knew people could still watch him on CSPAN).\nedit: Although this is not an end to CSPAN's broadcasting of the house - they just have to rely on the feed that the house provides rather than their own crews and cameras.",
">\n\nWhich, in all honesty is how they've operated for decades. This isn't in anyway new or partisan. We just got some cool footage due to there being no rules package until the speaker could get one voted on.",
">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!",
">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.",
">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube"
] |
>
Ok, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?
|
[
"Includes rule that all bills must be available to read 72 hours before the vote. Also includes last-minute addition containing the final concessions given to the Freedom Caucus that only the handful of people that wrote it got to see before voting on it.",
">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.",
">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould you explain? I am trying to get this, but so far my reading of the rules package indicates that the new 72 hour rule only applies to Calendar Wednesday described in Clause 6(a) of rule XV. You say there is something that effects this under \"section 5\". Clause 5 of rule XV talks about the \"Private Calendar\" so this isn't the section 5 you are talking about.",
">\n\nSection 5, which starts on page 50 of the rules package will move into immediately passing 10 (exact count) bills and 2 concurrent resolutions that will not be read, all points of contention on the bills are waived, and only an hour debate split between parties for each.",
">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll points of order against the bills are waived. This is standard for special rules like this. Otherwise, what would be the point of using special rules?\n\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.",
">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.",
">\n\nI liked my life better when I was in my early 20’s and didn’t care about politics. Now, I just realize what a shit show this life really is.",
">\n\nThe good news is that you can be part of the solution now. And you're not alone. There were a ton of young voters turning out for the election last year.",
">\n\nHow? I’ve voted for the party that is promised to “solve” these problems in the last 3 elections and will continue to do so. It’s not a solution. Contributing to a stalemate is just beating your head against a wall. Voting means nothing in this country with gerrymandering and the electoral college. Not to mention voting for either party really just locks us into slow churning dysfunctional partisan politics at the congressional level.",
">\n\nUnfortunately, people have to keep voting until Democrats have a super majority in the Senate, and there are more progressives in their party to hold them accountable, if they want to see any meaningful change. That’s probably going to take a decade of consistently voting blue. This goes down the ballot to local state legislators. The only reason Republicans have control of the house is because of Gerrymandering in Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Tennessee, etc. State legislatures are the ones drawing the maps. Progress is slow, but taking away progress is relatively quick.",
">\n\nThat's ironic, given it was CSPAN in the house chambers that led to these clowns even getting a platform in the first place (Gingrich used to give speeches to an empty house late at night because he knew people could still watch him on CSPAN).\nedit: Although this is not an end to CSPAN's broadcasting of the house - they just have to rely on the feed that the house provides rather than their own crews and cameras.",
">\n\nWhich, in all honesty is how they've operated for decades. This isn't in anyway new or partisan. We just got some cool footage due to there being no rules package until the speaker could get one voted on.",
">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!",
">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.",
">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube",
">\n\nI was watching on youtube"
] |
>
I believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.
|
[
"Includes rule that all bills must be available to read 72 hours before the vote. Also includes last-minute addition containing the final concessions given to the Freedom Caucus that only the handful of people that wrote it got to see before voting on it.",
">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.",
">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould you explain? I am trying to get this, but so far my reading of the rules package indicates that the new 72 hour rule only applies to Calendar Wednesday described in Clause 6(a) of rule XV. You say there is something that effects this under \"section 5\". Clause 5 of rule XV talks about the \"Private Calendar\" so this isn't the section 5 you are talking about.",
">\n\nSection 5, which starts on page 50 of the rules package will move into immediately passing 10 (exact count) bills and 2 concurrent resolutions that will not be read, all points of contention on the bills are waived, and only an hour debate split between parties for each.",
">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll points of order against the bills are waived. This is standard for special rules like this. Otherwise, what would be the point of using special rules?\n\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.",
">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.",
">\n\nI liked my life better when I was in my early 20’s and didn’t care about politics. Now, I just realize what a shit show this life really is.",
">\n\nThe good news is that you can be part of the solution now. And you're not alone. There were a ton of young voters turning out for the election last year.",
">\n\nHow? I’ve voted for the party that is promised to “solve” these problems in the last 3 elections and will continue to do so. It’s not a solution. Contributing to a stalemate is just beating your head against a wall. Voting means nothing in this country with gerrymandering and the electoral college. Not to mention voting for either party really just locks us into slow churning dysfunctional partisan politics at the congressional level.",
">\n\nUnfortunately, people have to keep voting until Democrats have a super majority in the Senate, and there are more progressives in their party to hold them accountable, if they want to see any meaningful change. That’s probably going to take a decade of consistently voting blue. This goes down the ballot to local state legislators. The only reason Republicans have control of the house is because of Gerrymandering in Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Tennessee, etc. State legislatures are the ones drawing the maps. Progress is slow, but taking away progress is relatively quick.",
">\n\nThat's ironic, given it was CSPAN in the house chambers that led to these clowns even getting a platform in the first place (Gingrich used to give speeches to an empty house late at night because he knew people could still watch him on CSPAN).\nedit: Although this is not an end to CSPAN's broadcasting of the house - they just have to rely on the feed that the house provides rather than their own crews and cameras.",
">\n\nWhich, in all honesty is how they've operated for decades. This isn't in anyway new or partisan. We just got some cool footage due to there being no rules package until the speaker could get one voted on.",
">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!",
">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.",
">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube",
">\n\nI was watching on youtube",
">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?"
] |
>
Get ready for all Republican committees. 😠
|
[
"Includes rule that all bills must be available to read 72 hours before the vote. Also includes last-minute addition containing the final concessions given to the Freedom Caucus that only the handful of people that wrote it got to see before voting on it.",
">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.",
">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould you explain? I am trying to get this, but so far my reading of the rules package indicates that the new 72 hour rule only applies to Calendar Wednesday described in Clause 6(a) of rule XV. You say there is something that effects this under \"section 5\". Clause 5 of rule XV talks about the \"Private Calendar\" so this isn't the section 5 you are talking about.",
">\n\nSection 5, which starts on page 50 of the rules package will move into immediately passing 10 (exact count) bills and 2 concurrent resolutions that will not be read, all points of contention on the bills are waived, and only an hour debate split between parties for each.",
">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll points of order against the bills are waived. This is standard for special rules like this. Otherwise, what would be the point of using special rules?\n\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.",
">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.",
">\n\nI liked my life better when I was in my early 20’s and didn’t care about politics. Now, I just realize what a shit show this life really is.",
">\n\nThe good news is that you can be part of the solution now. And you're not alone. There were a ton of young voters turning out for the election last year.",
">\n\nHow? I’ve voted for the party that is promised to “solve” these problems in the last 3 elections and will continue to do so. It’s not a solution. Contributing to a stalemate is just beating your head against a wall. Voting means nothing in this country with gerrymandering and the electoral college. Not to mention voting for either party really just locks us into slow churning dysfunctional partisan politics at the congressional level.",
">\n\nUnfortunately, people have to keep voting until Democrats have a super majority in the Senate, and there are more progressives in their party to hold them accountable, if they want to see any meaningful change. That’s probably going to take a decade of consistently voting blue. This goes down the ballot to local state legislators. The only reason Republicans have control of the house is because of Gerrymandering in Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Tennessee, etc. State legislatures are the ones drawing the maps. Progress is slow, but taking away progress is relatively quick.",
">\n\nThat's ironic, given it was CSPAN in the house chambers that led to these clowns even getting a platform in the first place (Gingrich used to give speeches to an empty house late at night because he knew people could still watch him on CSPAN).\nedit: Although this is not an end to CSPAN's broadcasting of the house - they just have to rely on the feed that the house provides rather than their own crews and cameras.",
">\n\nWhich, in all honesty is how they've operated for decades. This isn't in anyway new or partisan. We just got some cool footage due to there being no rules package until the speaker could get one voted on.",
">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!",
">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.",
">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube",
">\n\nI was watching on youtube",
">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?",
">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone."
] |
>
Thats literally not allowed
|
[
"Includes rule that all bills must be available to read 72 hours before the vote. Also includes last-minute addition containing the final concessions given to the Freedom Caucus that only the handful of people that wrote it got to see before voting on it.",
">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.",
">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould you explain? I am trying to get this, but so far my reading of the rules package indicates that the new 72 hour rule only applies to Calendar Wednesday described in Clause 6(a) of rule XV. You say there is something that effects this under \"section 5\". Clause 5 of rule XV talks about the \"Private Calendar\" so this isn't the section 5 you are talking about.",
">\n\nSection 5, which starts on page 50 of the rules package will move into immediately passing 10 (exact count) bills and 2 concurrent resolutions that will not be read, all points of contention on the bills are waived, and only an hour debate split between parties for each.",
">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll points of order against the bills are waived. This is standard for special rules like this. Otherwise, what would be the point of using special rules?\n\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.",
">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.",
">\n\nI liked my life better when I was in my early 20’s and didn’t care about politics. Now, I just realize what a shit show this life really is.",
">\n\nThe good news is that you can be part of the solution now. And you're not alone. There were a ton of young voters turning out for the election last year.",
">\n\nHow? I’ve voted for the party that is promised to “solve” these problems in the last 3 elections and will continue to do so. It’s not a solution. Contributing to a stalemate is just beating your head against a wall. Voting means nothing in this country with gerrymandering and the electoral college. Not to mention voting for either party really just locks us into slow churning dysfunctional partisan politics at the congressional level.",
">\n\nUnfortunately, people have to keep voting until Democrats have a super majority in the Senate, and there are more progressives in their party to hold them accountable, if they want to see any meaningful change. That’s probably going to take a decade of consistently voting blue. This goes down the ballot to local state legislators. The only reason Republicans have control of the house is because of Gerrymandering in Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Tennessee, etc. State legislatures are the ones drawing the maps. Progress is slow, but taking away progress is relatively quick.",
">\n\nThat's ironic, given it was CSPAN in the house chambers that led to these clowns even getting a platform in the first place (Gingrich used to give speeches to an empty house late at night because he knew people could still watch him on CSPAN).\nedit: Although this is not an end to CSPAN's broadcasting of the house - they just have to rely on the feed that the house provides rather than their own crews and cameras.",
">\n\nWhich, in all honesty is how they've operated for decades. This isn't in anyway new or partisan. We just got some cool footage due to there being no rules package until the speaker could get one voted on.",
">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!",
">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.",
">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube",
">\n\nI was watching on youtube",
">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?",
">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.",
">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠"
] |
>
All saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.
|
[
"Includes rule that all bills must be available to read 72 hours before the vote. Also includes last-minute addition containing the final concessions given to the Freedom Caucus that only the handful of people that wrote it got to see before voting on it.",
">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.",
">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould you explain? I am trying to get this, but so far my reading of the rules package indicates that the new 72 hour rule only applies to Calendar Wednesday described in Clause 6(a) of rule XV. You say there is something that effects this under \"section 5\". Clause 5 of rule XV talks about the \"Private Calendar\" so this isn't the section 5 you are talking about.",
">\n\nSection 5, which starts on page 50 of the rules package will move into immediately passing 10 (exact count) bills and 2 concurrent resolutions that will not be read, all points of contention on the bills are waived, and only an hour debate split between parties for each.",
">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll points of order against the bills are waived. This is standard for special rules like this. Otherwise, what would be the point of using special rules?\n\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.",
">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.",
">\n\nI liked my life better when I was in my early 20’s and didn’t care about politics. Now, I just realize what a shit show this life really is.",
">\n\nThe good news is that you can be part of the solution now. And you're not alone. There were a ton of young voters turning out for the election last year.",
">\n\nHow? I’ve voted for the party that is promised to “solve” these problems in the last 3 elections and will continue to do so. It’s not a solution. Contributing to a stalemate is just beating your head against a wall. Voting means nothing in this country with gerrymandering and the electoral college. Not to mention voting for either party really just locks us into slow churning dysfunctional partisan politics at the congressional level.",
">\n\nUnfortunately, people have to keep voting until Democrats have a super majority in the Senate, and there are more progressives in their party to hold them accountable, if they want to see any meaningful change. That’s probably going to take a decade of consistently voting blue. This goes down the ballot to local state legislators. The only reason Republicans have control of the house is because of Gerrymandering in Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Tennessee, etc. State legislatures are the ones drawing the maps. Progress is slow, but taking away progress is relatively quick.",
">\n\nThat's ironic, given it was CSPAN in the house chambers that led to these clowns even getting a platform in the first place (Gingrich used to give speeches to an empty house late at night because he knew people could still watch him on CSPAN).\nedit: Although this is not an end to CSPAN's broadcasting of the house - they just have to rely on the feed that the house provides rather than their own crews and cameras.",
">\n\nWhich, in all honesty is how they've operated for decades. This isn't in anyway new or partisan. We just got some cool footage due to there being no rules package until the speaker could get one voted on.",
">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!",
">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.",
">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube",
">\n\nI was watching on youtube",
">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?",
">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.",
">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠",
">\n\nThats literally not allowed"
] |
>
I suppose I was hoping for too much. If this pattern continues, that's not a good sign for the Democrats in 2024, as that means a much tougher road.
|
[
"Includes rule that all bills must be available to read 72 hours before the vote. Also includes last-minute addition containing the final concessions given to the Freedom Caucus that only the handful of people that wrote it got to see before voting on it.",
">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.",
">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould you explain? I am trying to get this, but so far my reading of the rules package indicates that the new 72 hour rule only applies to Calendar Wednesday described in Clause 6(a) of rule XV. You say there is something that effects this under \"section 5\". Clause 5 of rule XV talks about the \"Private Calendar\" so this isn't the section 5 you are talking about.",
">\n\nSection 5, which starts on page 50 of the rules package will move into immediately passing 10 (exact count) bills and 2 concurrent resolutions that will not be read, all points of contention on the bills are waived, and only an hour debate split between parties for each.",
">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll points of order against the bills are waived. This is standard for special rules like this. Otherwise, what would be the point of using special rules?\n\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.",
">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.",
">\n\nI liked my life better when I was in my early 20’s and didn’t care about politics. Now, I just realize what a shit show this life really is.",
">\n\nThe good news is that you can be part of the solution now. And you're not alone. There were a ton of young voters turning out for the election last year.",
">\n\nHow? I’ve voted for the party that is promised to “solve” these problems in the last 3 elections and will continue to do so. It’s not a solution. Contributing to a stalemate is just beating your head against a wall. Voting means nothing in this country with gerrymandering and the electoral college. Not to mention voting for either party really just locks us into slow churning dysfunctional partisan politics at the congressional level.",
">\n\nUnfortunately, people have to keep voting until Democrats have a super majority in the Senate, and there are more progressives in their party to hold them accountable, if they want to see any meaningful change. That’s probably going to take a decade of consistently voting blue. This goes down the ballot to local state legislators. The only reason Republicans have control of the house is because of Gerrymandering in Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Tennessee, etc. State legislatures are the ones drawing the maps. Progress is slow, but taking away progress is relatively quick.",
">\n\nThat's ironic, given it was CSPAN in the house chambers that led to these clowns even getting a platform in the first place (Gingrich used to give speeches to an empty house late at night because he knew people could still watch him on CSPAN).\nedit: Although this is not an end to CSPAN's broadcasting of the house - they just have to rely on the feed that the house provides rather than their own crews and cameras.",
">\n\nWhich, in all honesty is how they've operated for decades. This isn't in anyway new or partisan. We just got some cool footage due to there being no rules package until the speaker could get one voted on.",
">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!",
">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.",
">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube",
">\n\nI was watching on youtube",
">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?",
">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.",
">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠",
">\n\nThats literally not allowed",
">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are."
] |
>
It will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.
|
[
"Includes rule that all bills must be available to read 72 hours before the vote. Also includes last-minute addition containing the final concessions given to the Freedom Caucus that only the handful of people that wrote it got to see before voting on it.",
">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.",
">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould you explain? I am trying to get this, but so far my reading of the rules package indicates that the new 72 hour rule only applies to Calendar Wednesday described in Clause 6(a) of rule XV. You say there is something that effects this under \"section 5\". Clause 5 of rule XV talks about the \"Private Calendar\" so this isn't the section 5 you are talking about.",
">\n\nSection 5, which starts on page 50 of the rules package will move into immediately passing 10 (exact count) bills and 2 concurrent resolutions that will not be read, all points of contention on the bills are waived, and only an hour debate split between parties for each.",
">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll points of order against the bills are waived. This is standard for special rules like this. Otherwise, what would be the point of using special rules?\n\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.",
">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.",
">\n\nI liked my life better when I was in my early 20’s and didn’t care about politics. Now, I just realize what a shit show this life really is.",
">\n\nThe good news is that you can be part of the solution now. And you're not alone. There were a ton of young voters turning out for the election last year.",
">\n\nHow? I’ve voted for the party that is promised to “solve” these problems in the last 3 elections and will continue to do so. It’s not a solution. Contributing to a stalemate is just beating your head against a wall. Voting means nothing in this country with gerrymandering and the electoral college. Not to mention voting for either party really just locks us into slow churning dysfunctional partisan politics at the congressional level.",
">\n\nUnfortunately, people have to keep voting until Democrats have a super majority in the Senate, and there are more progressives in their party to hold them accountable, if they want to see any meaningful change. That’s probably going to take a decade of consistently voting blue. This goes down the ballot to local state legislators. The only reason Republicans have control of the house is because of Gerrymandering in Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Tennessee, etc. State legislatures are the ones drawing the maps. Progress is slow, but taking away progress is relatively quick.",
">\n\nThat's ironic, given it was CSPAN in the house chambers that led to these clowns even getting a platform in the first place (Gingrich used to give speeches to an empty house late at night because he knew people could still watch him on CSPAN).\nedit: Although this is not an end to CSPAN's broadcasting of the house - they just have to rely on the feed that the house provides rather than their own crews and cameras.",
">\n\nWhich, in all honesty is how they've operated for decades. This isn't in anyway new or partisan. We just got some cool footage due to there being no rules package until the speaker could get one voted on.",
">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!",
">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.",
">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube",
">\n\nI was watching on youtube",
">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?",
">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.",
">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠",
">\n\nThats literally not allowed",
">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.",
">\n\nI suppose I was hoping for too much. If this pattern continues, that's not a good sign for the Democrats in 2024, as that means a much tougher road."
] |
>
Honestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.
|
[
"Includes rule that all bills must be available to read 72 hours before the vote. Also includes last-minute addition containing the final concessions given to the Freedom Caucus that only the handful of people that wrote it got to see before voting on it.",
">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.",
">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould you explain? I am trying to get this, but so far my reading of the rules package indicates that the new 72 hour rule only applies to Calendar Wednesday described in Clause 6(a) of rule XV. You say there is something that effects this under \"section 5\". Clause 5 of rule XV talks about the \"Private Calendar\" so this isn't the section 5 you are talking about.",
">\n\nSection 5, which starts on page 50 of the rules package will move into immediately passing 10 (exact count) bills and 2 concurrent resolutions that will not be read, all points of contention on the bills are waived, and only an hour debate split between parties for each.",
">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll points of order against the bills are waived. This is standard for special rules like this. Otherwise, what would be the point of using special rules?\n\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.",
">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.",
">\n\nI liked my life better when I was in my early 20’s and didn’t care about politics. Now, I just realize what a shit show this life really is.",
">\n\nThe good news is that you can be part of the solution now. And you're not alone. There were a ton of young voters turning out for the election last year.",
">\n\nHow? I’ve voted for the party that is promised to “solve” these problems in the last 3 elections and will continue to do so. It’s not a solution. Contributing to a stalemate is just beating your head against a wall. Voting means nothing in this country with gerrymandering and the electoral college. Not to mention voting for either party really just locks us into slow churning dysfunctional partisan politics at the congressional level.",
">\n\nUnfortunately, people have to keep voting until Democrats have a super majority in the Senate, and there are more progressives in their party to hold them accountable, if they want to see any meaningful change. That’s probably going to take a decade of consistently voting blue. This goes down the ballot to local state legislators. The only reason Republicans have control of the house is because of Gerrymandering in Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Tennessee, etc. State legislatures are the ones drawing the maps. Progress is slow, but taking away progress is relatively quick.",
">\n\nThat's ironic, given it was CSPAN in the house chambers that led to these clowns even getting a platform in the first place (Gingrich used to give speeches to an empty house late at night because he knew people could still watch him on CSPAN).\nedit: Although this is not an end to CSPAN's broadcasting of the house - they just have to rely on the feed that the house provides rather than their own crews and cameras.",
">\n\nWhich, in all honesty is how they've operated for decades. This isn't in anyway new or partisan. We just got some cool footage due to there being no rules package until the speaker could get one voted on.",
">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!",
">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.",
">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube",
">\n\nI was watching on youtube",
">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?",
">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.",
">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠",
">\n\nThats literally not allowed",
">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.",
">\n\nI suppose I was hoping for too much. If this pattern continues, that's not a good sign for the Democrats in 2024, as that means a much tougher road.",
">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful."
] |
>
It won't be boring if the House fails to raise the debt ceiling and causes the US to default on its debts (due to already committed spending) and/or the federal government is forced to shutdown for an extended period of time. There are some thing that the House needs to do for our country to continue functioning, and I worry it won't be capable of doing so.
|
[
"Includes rule that all bills must be available to read 72 hours before the vote. Also includes last-minute addition containing the final concessions given to the Freedom Caucus that only the handful of people that wrote it got to see before voting on it.",
">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.",
">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould you explain? I am trying to get this, but so far my reading of the rules package indicates that the new 72 hour rule only applies to Calendar Wednesday described in Clause 6(a) of rule XV. You say there is something that effects this under \"section 5\". Clause 5 of rule XV talks about the \"Private Calendar\" so this isn't the section 5 you are talking about.",
">\n\nSection 5, which starts on page 50 of the rules package will move into immediately passing 10 (exact count) bills and 2 concurrent resolutions that will not be read, all points of contention on the bills are waived, and only an hour debate split between parties for each.",
">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll points of order against the bills are waived. This is standard for special rules like this. Otherwise, what would be the point of using special rules?\n\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.",
">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.",
">\n\nI liked my life better when I was in my early 20’s and didn’t care about politics. Now, I just realize what a shit show this life really is.",
">\n\nThe good news is that you can be part of the solution now. And you're not alone. There were a ton of young voters turning out for the election last year.",
">\n\nHow? I’ve voted for the party that is promised to “solve” these problems in the last 3 elections and will continue to do so. It’s not a solution. Contributing to a stalemate is just beating your head against a wall. Voting means nothing in this country with gerrymandering and the electoral college. Not to mention voting for either party really just locks us into slow churning dysfunctional partisan politics at the congressional level.",
">\n\nUnfortunately, people have to keep voting until Democrats have a super majority in the Senate, and there are more progressives in their party to hold them accountable, if they want to see any meaningful change. That’s probably going to take a decade of consistently voting blue. This goes down the ballot to local state legislators. The only reason Republicans have control of the house is because of Gerrymandering in Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Tennessee, etc. State legislatures are the ones drawing the maps. Progress is slow, but taking away progress is relatively quick.",
">\n\nThat's ironic, given it was CSPAN in the house chambers that led to these clowns even getting a platform in the first place (Gingrich used to give speeches to an empty house late at night because he knew people could still watch him on CSPAN).\nedit: Although this is not an end to CSPAN's broadcasting of the house - they just have to rely on the feed that the house provides rather than their own crews and cameras.",
">\n\nWhich, in all honesty is how they've operated for decades. This isn't in anyway new or partisan. We just got some cool footage due to there being no rules package until the speaker could get one voted on.",
">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!",
">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.",
">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube",
">\n\nI was watching on youtube",
">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?",
">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.",
">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠",
">\n\nThats literally not allowed",
">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.",
">\n\nI suppose I was hoping for too much. If this pattern continues, that's not a good sign for the Democrats in 2024, as that means a much tougher road.",
">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.",
">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate."
] |
>
...that threat has happened nearly every session since I was in high school when Obama first got elected. Like legit that threat is made every time it comes about but they won't do that because it would devalue the dollar which makes them poorer. They can threaten it, they can posture, but at the end of the day their wallets will make them vote on it. B-o-r-i-n-g.
|
[
"Includes rule that all bills must be available to read 72 hours before the vote. Also includes last-minute addition containing the final concessions given to the Freedom Caucus that only the handful of people that wrote it got to see before voting on it.",
">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.",
">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould you explain? I am trying to get this, but so far my reading of the rules package indicates that the new 72 hour rule only applies to Calendar Wednesday described in Clause 6(a) of rule XV. You say there is something that effects this under \"section 5\". Clause 5 of rule XV talks about the \"Private Calendar\" so this isn't the section 5 you are talking about.",
">\n\nSection 5, which starts on page 50 of the rules package will move into immediately passing 10 (exact count) bills and 2 concurrent resolutions that will not be read, all points of contention on the bills are waived, and only an hour debate split between parties for each.",
">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll points of order against the bills are waived. This is standard for special rules like this. Otherwise, what would be the point of using special rules?\n\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.",
">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.",
">\n\nI liked my life better when I was in my early 20’s and didn’t care about politics. Now, I just realize what a shit show this life really is.",
">\n\nThe good news is that you can be part of the solution now. And you're not alone. There were a ton of young voters turning out for the election last year.",
">\n\nHow? I’ve voted for the party that is promised to “solve” these problems in the last 3 elections and will continue to do so. It’s not a solution. Contributing to a stalemate is just beating your head against a wall. Voting means nothing in this country with gerrymandering and the electoral college. Not to mention voting for either party really just locks us into slow churning dysfunctional partisan politics at the congressional level.",
">\n\nUnfortunately, people have to keep voting until Democrats have a super majority in the Senate, and there are more progressives in their party to hold them accountable, if they want to see any meaningful change. That’s probably going to take a decade of consistently voting blue. This goes down the ballot to local state legislators. The only reason Republicans have control of the house is because of Gerrymandering in Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Tennessee, etc. State legislatures are the ones drawing the maps. Progress is slow, but taking away progress is relatively quick.",
">\n\nThat's ironic, given it was CSPAN in the house chambers that led to these clowns even getting a platform in the first place (Gingrich used to give speeches to an empty house late at night because he knew people could still watch him on CSPAN).\nedit: Although this is not an end to CSPAN's broadcasting of the house - they just have to rely on the feed that the house provides rather than their own crews and cameras.",
">\n\nWhich, in all honesty is how they've operated for decades. This isn't in anyway new or partisan. We just got some cool footage due to there being no rules package until the speaker could get one voted on.",
">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!",
">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.",
">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube",
">\n\nI was watching on youtube",
">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?",
">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.",
">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠",
">\n\nThats literally not allowed",
">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.",
">\n\nI suppose I was hoping for too much. If this pattern continues, that's not a good sign for the Democrats in 2024, as that means a much tougher road.",
">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.",
">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.",
">\n\nIt won't be boring if the House fails to raise the debt ceiling and causes the US to default on its debts (due to already committed spending) and/or the federal government is forced to shutdown for an extended period of time. There are some thing that the House needs to do for our country to continue functioning, and I worry it won't be capable of doing so."
] |
>
Every other time the Republicans have made the threat it was pretty obviously a threat to try to get something. Right now we have at least 20 Republicans in the House who seem to legitimately want to hurt the country (and in particular the federal government) in whatever way they can, and I think they would actually follow through with it. I doubt it is even a majority of Republicans in the House who want that, but if it only takes 6 of them to oust McCarthy as Speaker, the only way I see to avoid it is for McCarthy's speakership to fail and a cross-party coalition to form in the House. Are there enough Republicans who would rather that happen than tear the whole thing down?
|
[
"Includes rule that all bills must be available to read 72 hours before the vote. Also includes last-minute addition containing the final concessions given to the Freedom Caucus that only the handful of people that wrote it got to see before voting on it.",
">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.",
">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould you explain? I am trying to get this, but so far my reading of the rules package indicates that the new 72 hour rule only applies to Calendar Wednesday described in Clause 6(a) of rule XV. You say there is something that effects this under \"section 5\". Clause 5 of rule XV talks about the \"Private Calendar\" so this isn't the section 5 you are talking about.",
">\n\nSection 5, which starts on page 50 of the rules package will move into immediately passing 10 (exact count) bills and 2 concurrent resolutions that will not be read, all points of contention on the bills are waived, and only an hour debate split between parties for each.",
">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll points of order against the bills are waived. This is standard for special rules like this. Otherwise, what would be the point of using special rules?\n\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.",
">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.",
">\n\nI liked my life better when I was in my early 20’s and didn’t care about politics. Now, I just realize what a shit show this life really is.",
">\n\nThe good news is that you can be part of the solution now. And you're not alone. There were a ton of young voters turning out for the election last year.",
">\n\nHow? I’ve voted for the party that is promised to “solve” these problems in the last 3 elections and will continue to do so. It’s not a solution. Contributing to a stalemate is just beating your head against a wall. Voting means nothing in this country with gerrymandering and the electoral college. Not to mention voting for either party really just locks us into slow churning dysfunctional partisan politics at the congressional level.",
">\n\nUnfortunately, people have to keep voting until Democrats have a super majority in the Senate, and there are more progressives in their party to hold them accountable, if they want to see any meaningful change. That’s probably going to take a decade of consistently voting blue. This goes down the ballot to local state legislators. The only reason Republicans have control of the house is because of Gerrymandering in Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Tennessee, etc. State legislatures are the ones drawing the maps. Progress is slow, but taking away progress is relatively quick.",
">\n\nThat's ironic, given it was CSPAN in the house chambers that led to these clowns even getting a platform in the first place (Gingrich used to give speeches to an empty house late at night because he knew people could still watch him on CSPAN).\nedit: Although this is not an end to CSPAN's broadcasting of the house - they just have to rely on the feed that the house provides rather than their own crews and cameras.",
">\n\nWhich, in all honesty is how they've operated for decades. This isn't in anyway new or partisan. We just got some cool footage due to there being no rules package until the speaker could get one voted on.",
">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!",
">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.",
">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube",
">\n\nI was watching on youtube",
">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?",
">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.",
">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠",
">\n\nThats literally not allowed",
">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.",
">\n\nI suppose I was hoping for too much. If this pattern continues, that's not a good sign for the Democrats in 2024, as that means a much tougher road.",
">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.",
">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.",
">\n\nIt won't be boring if the House fails to raise the debt ceiling and causes the US to default on its debts (due to already committed spending) and/or the federal government is forced to shutdown for an extended period of time. There are some thing that the House needs to do for our country to continue functioning, and I worry it won't be capable of doing so.",
">\n\n...that threat has happened nearly every session since I was in high school when Obama first got elected. Like legit that threat is made every time it comes about but they won't do that because it would devalue the dollar which makes them poorer. They can threaten it, they can posture, but at the end of the day their wallets will make them vote on it. B-o-r-i-n-g."
] |
>
It doesn't take 6 of them to remove McCarthy as speaker. That's assuming the Democrats would vote alongside the Q-Anon caucus to remove McCarthy, which is unlikely
|
[
"Includes rule that all bills must be available to read 72 hours before the vote. Also includes last-minute addition containing the final concessions given to the Freedom Caucus that only the handful of people that wrote it got to see before voting on it.",
">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.",
">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould you explain? I am trying to get this, but so far my reading of the rules package indicates that the new 72 hour rule only applies to Calendar Wednesday described in Clause 6(a) of rule XV. You say there is something that effects this under \"section 5\". Clause 5 of rule XV talks about the \"Private Calendar\" so this isn't the section 5 you are talking about.",
">\n\nSection 5, which starts on page 50 of the rules package will move into immediately passing 10 (exact count) bills and 2 concurrent resolutions that will not be read, all points of contention on the bills are waived, and only an hour debate split between parties for each.",
">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll points of order against the bills are waived. This is standard for special rules like this. Otherwise, what would be the point of using special rules?\n\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.",
">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.",
">\n\nI liked my life better when I was in my early 20’s and didn’t care about politics. Now, I just realize what a shit show this life really is.",
">\n\nThe good news is that you can be part of the solution now. And you're not alone. There were a ton of young voters turning out for the election last year.",
">\n\nHow? I’ve voted for the party that is promised to “solve” these problems in the last 3 elections and will continue to do so. It’s not a solution. Contributing to a stalemate is just beating your head against a wall. Voting means nothing in this country with gerrymandering and the electoral college. Not to mention voting for either party really just locks us into slow churning dysfunctional partisan politics at the congressional level.",
">\n\nUnfortunately, people have to keep voting until Democrats have a super majority in the Senate, and there are more progressives in their party to hold them accountable, if they want to see any meaningful change. That’s probably going to take a decade of consistently voting blue. This goes down the ballot to local state legislators. The only reason Republicans have control of the house is because of Gerrymandering in Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Tennessee, etc. State legislatures are the ones drawing the maps. Progress is slow, but taking away progress is relatively quick.",
">\n\nThat's ironic, given it was CSPAN in the house chambers that led to these clowns even getting a platform in the first place (Gingrich used to give speeches to an empty house late at night because he knew people could still watch him on CSPAN).\nedit: Although this is not an end to CSPAN's broadcasting of the house - they just have to rely on the feed that the house provides rather than their own crews and cameras.",
">\n\nWhich, in all honesty is how they've operated for decades. This isn't in anyway new or partisan. We just got some cool footage due to there being no rules package until the speaker could get one voted on.",
">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!",
">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.",
">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube",
">\n\nI was watching on youtube",
">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?",
">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.",
">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠",
">\n\nThats literally not allowed",
">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.",
">\n\nI suppose I was hoping for too much. If this pattern continues, that's not a good sign for the Democrats in 2024, as that means a much tougher road.",
">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.",
">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.",
">\n\nIt won't be boring if the House fails to raise the debt ceiling and causes the US to default on its debts (due to already committed spending) and/or the federal government is forced to shutdown for an extended period of time. There are some thing that the House needs to do for our country to continue functioning, and I worry it won't be capable of doing so.",
">\n\n...that threat has happened nearly every session since I was in high school when Obama first got elected. Like legit that threat is made every time it comes about but they won't do that because it would devalue the dollar which makes them poorer. They can threaten it, they can posture, but at the end of the day their wallets will make them vote on it. B-o-r-i-n-g.",
">\n\nEvery other time the Republicans have made the threat it was pretty obviously a threat to try to get something. Right now we have at least 20 Republicans in the House who seem to legitimately want to hurt the country (and in particular the federal government) in whatever way they can, and I think they would actually follow through with it. I doubt it is even a majority of Republicans in the House who want that, but if it only takes 6 of them to oust McCarthy as Speaker, the only way I see to avoid it is for McCarthy's speakership to fail and a cross-party coalition to form in the House. Are there enough Republicans who would rather that happen than tear the whole thing down?"
] |
>
I am assuming the Dems would vote to remove McCarthy as Speaker if anyone ever forces that vote. They didn't want him as Speaker to start with, so why wouldn't they vote to remove him if given the opportunity?
|
[
"Includes rule that all bills must be available to read 72 hours before the vote. Also includes last-minute addition containing the final concessions given to the Freedom Caucus that only the handful of people that wrote it got to see before voting on it.",
">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.",
">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould you explain? I am trying to get this, but so far my reading of the rules package indicates that the new 72 hour rule only applies to Calendar Wednesday described in Clause 6(a) of rule XV. You say there is something that effects this under \"section 5\". Clause 5 of rule XV talks about the \"Private Calendar\" so this isn't the section 5 you are talking about.",
">\n\nSection 5, which starts on page 50 of the rules package will move into immediately passing 10 (exact count) bills and 2 concurrent resolutions that will not be read, all points of contention on the bills are waived, and only an hour debate split between parties for each.",
">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll points of order against the bills are waived. This is standard for special rules like this. Otherwise, what would be the point of using special rules?\n\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.",
">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.",
">\n\nI liked my life better when I was in my early 20’s and didn’t care about politics. Now, I just realize what a shit show this life really is.",
">\n\nThe good news is that you can be part of the solution now. And you're not alone. There were a ton of young voters turning out for the election last year.",
">\n\nHow? I’ve voted for the party that is promised to “solve” these problems in the last 3 elections and will continue to do so. It’s not a solution. Contributing to a stalemate is just beating your head against a wall. Voting means nothing in this country with gerrymandering and the electoral college. Not to mention voting for either party really just locks us into slow churning dysfunctional partisan politics at the congressional level.",
">\n\nUnfortunately, people have to keep voting until Democrats have a super majority in the Senate, and there are more progressives in their party to hold them accountable, if they want to see any meaningful change. That’s probably going to take a decade of consistently voting blue. This goes down the ballot to local state legislators. The only reason Republicans have control of the house is because of Gerrymandering in Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Tennessee, etc. State legislatures are the ones drawing the maps. Progress is slow, but taking away progress is relatively quick.",
">\n\nThat's ironic, given it was CSPAN in the house chambers that led to these clowns even getting a platform in the first place (Gingrich used to give speeches to an empty house late at night because he knew people could still watch him on CSPAN).\nedit: Although this is not an end to CSPAN's broadcasting of the house - they just have to rely on the feed that the house provides rather than their own crews and cameras.",
">\n\nWhich, in all honesty is how they've operated for decades. This isn't in anyway new or partisan. We just got some cool footage due to there being no rules package until the speaker could get one voted on.",
">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!",
">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.",
">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube",
">\n\nI was watching on youtube",
">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?",
">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.",
">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠",
">\n\nThats literally not allowed",
">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.",
">\n\nI suppose I was hoping for too much. If this pattern continues, that's not a good sign for the Democrats in 2024, as that means a much tougher road.",
">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.",
">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.",
">\n\nIt won't be boring if the House fails to raise the debt ceiling and causes the US to default on its debts (due to already committed spending) and/or the federal government is forced to shutdown for an extended period of time. There are some thing that the House needs to do for our country to continue functioning, and I worry it won't be capable of doing so.",
">\n\n...that threat has happened nearly every session since I was in high school when Obama first got elected. Like legit that threat is made every time it comes about but they won't do that because it would devalue the dollar which makes them poorer. They can threaten it, they can posture, but at the end of the day their wallets will make them vote on it. B-o-r-i-n-g.",
">\n\nEvery other time the Republicans have made the threat it was pretty obviously a threat to try to get something. Right now we have at least 20 Republicans in the House who seem to legitimately want to hurt the country (and in particular the federal government) in whatever way they can, and I think they would actually follow through with it. I doubt it is even a majority of Republicans in the House who want that, but if it only takes 6 of them to oust McCarthy as Speaker, the only way I see to avoid it is for McCarthy's speakership to fail and a cross-party coalition to form in the House. Are there enough Republicans who would rather that happen than tear the whole thing down?",
">\n\nIt doesn't take 6 of them to remove McCarthy as speaker. That's assuming the Democrats would vote alongside the Q-Anon caucus to remove McCarthy, which is unlikely"
] |
>
Why would they vote to remove him as speaker if all they would get was someone from the Q-Anon caucus? They would not. The Q-Anon caucus is assuming the Democrats are as dumb as they are, which is not the case. They would have no reason to support them or give the Q-Anon caucus a political win. They might not like McCarthy, but giving power to someone even more destructive is not in their interest.
|
[
"Includes rule that all bills must be available to read 72 hours before the vote. Also includes last-minute addition containing the final concessions given to the Freedom Caucus that only the handful of people that wrote it got to see before voting on it.",
">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.",
">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould you explain? I am trying to get this, but so far my reading of the rules package indicates that the new 72 hour rule only applies to Calendar Wednesday described in Clause 6(a) of rule XV. You say there is something that effects this under \"section 5\". Clause 5 of rule XV talks about the \"Private Calendar\" so this isn't the section 5 you are talking about.",
">\n\nSection 5, which starts on page 50 of the rules package will move into immediately passing 10 (exact count) bills and 2 concurrent resolutions that will not be read, all points of contention on the bills are waived, and only an hour debate split between parties for each.",
">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll points of order against the bills are waived. This is standard for special rules like this. Otherwise, what would be the point of using special rules?\n\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.",
">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.",
">\n\nI liked my life better when I was in my early 20’s and didn’t care about politics. Now, I just realize what a shit show this life really is.",
">\n\nThe good news is that you can be part of the solution now. And you're not alone. There were a ton of young voters turning out for the election last year.",
">\n\nHow? I’ve voted for the party that is promised to “solve” these problems in the last 3 elections and will continue to do so. It’s not a solution. Contributing to a stalemate is just beating your head against a wall. Voting means nothing in this country with gerrymandering and the electoral college. Not to mention voting for either party really just locks us into slow churning dysfunctional partisan politics at the congressional level.",
">\n\nUnfortunately, people have to keep voting until Democrats have a super majority in the Senate, and there are more progressives in their party to hold them accountable, if they want to see any meaningful change. That’s probably going to take a decade of consistently voting blue. This goes down the ballot to local state legislators. The only reason Republicans have control of the house is because of Gerrymandering in Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Tennessee, etc. State legislatures are the ones drawing the maps. Progress is slow, but taking away progress is relatively quick.",
">\n\nThat's ironic, given it was CSPAN in the house chambers that led to these clowns even getting a platform in the first place (Gingrich used to give speeches to an empty house late at night because he knew people could still watch him on CSPAN).\nedit: Although this is not an end to CSPAN's broadcasting of the house - they just have to rely on the feed that the house provides rather than their own crews and cameras.",
">\n\nWhich, in all honesty is how they've operated for decades. This isn't in anyway new or partisan. We just got some cool footage due to there being no rules package until the speaker could get one voted on.",
">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!",
">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.",
">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube",
">\n\nI was watching on youtube",
">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?",
">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.",
">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠",
">\n\nThats literally not allowed",
">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.",
">\n\nI suppose I was hoping for too much. If this pattern continues, that's not a good sign for the Democrats in 2024, as that means a much tougher road.",
">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.",
">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.",
">\n\nIt won't be boring if the House fails to raise the debt ceiling and causes the US to default on its debts (due to already committed spending) and/or the federal government is forced to shutdown for an extended period of time. There are some thing that the House needs to do for our country to continue functioning, and I worry it won't be capable of doing so.",
">\n\n...that threat has happened nearly every session since I was in high school when Obama first got elected. Like legit that threat is made every time it comes about but they won't do that because it would devalue the dollar which makes them poorer. They can threaten it, they can posture, but at the end of the day their wallets will make them vote on it. B-o-r-i-n-g.",
">\n\nEvery other time the Republicans have made the threat it was pretty obviously a threat to try to get something. Right now we have at least 20 Republicans in the House who seem to legitimately want to hurt the country (and in particular the federal government) in whatever way they can, and I think they would actually follow through with it. I doubt it is even a majority of Republicans in the House who want that, but if it only takes 6 of them to oust McCarthy as Speaker, the only way I see to avoid it is for McCarthy's speakership to fail and a cross-party coalition to form in the House. Are there enough Republicans who would rather that happen than tear the whole thing down?",
">\n\nIt doesn't take 6 of them to remove McCarthy as speaker. That's assuming the Democrats would vote alongside the Q-Anon caucus to remove McCarthy, which is unlikely",
">\n\nI am assuming the Dems would vote to remove McCarthy as Speaker if anyone ever forces that vote. They didn't want him as Speaker to start with, so why wouldn't they vote to remove him if given the opportunity?"
] |
>
What I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.
|
[
"Includes rule that all bills must be available to read 72 hours before the vote. Also includes last-minute addition containing the final concessions given to the Freedom Caucus that only the handful of people that wrote it got to see before voting on it.",
">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.",
">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould you explain? I am trying to get this, but so far my reading of the rules package indicates that the new 72 hour rule only applies to Calendar Wednesday described in Clause 6(a) of rule XV. You say there is something that effects this under \"section 5\". Clause 5 of rule XV talks about the \"Private Calendar\" so this isn't the section 5 you are talking about.",
">\n\nSection 5, which starts on page 50 of the rules package will move into immediately passing 10 (exact count) bills and 2 concurrent resolutions that will not be read, all points of contention on the bills are waived, and only an hour debate split between parties for each.",
">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll points of order against the bills are waived. This is standard for special rules like this. Otherwise, what would be the point of using special rules?\n\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.",
">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.",
">\n\nI liked my life better when I was in my early 20’s and didn’t care about politics. Now, I just realize what a shit show this life really is.",
">\n\nThe good news is that you can be part of the solution now. And you're not alone. There were a ton of young voters turning out for the election last year.",
">\n\nHow? I’ve voted for the party that is promised to “solve” these problems in the last 3 elections and will continue to do so. It’s not a solution. Contributing to a stalemate is just beating your head against a wall. Voting means nothing in this country with gerrymandering and the electoral college. Not to mention voting for either party really just locks us into slow churning dysfunctional partisan politics at the congressional level.",
">\n\nUnfortunately, people have to keep voting until Democrats have a super majority in the Senate, and there are more progressives in their party to hold them accountable, if they want to see any meaningful change. That’s probably going to take a decade of consistently voting blue. This goes down the ballot to local state legislators. The only reason Republicans have control of the house is because of Gerrymandering in Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Tennessee, etc. State legislatures are the ones drawing the maps. Progress is slow, but taking away progress is relatively quick.",
">\n\nThat's ironic, given it was CSPAN in the house chambers that led to these clowns even getting a platform in the first place (Gingrich used to give speeches to an empty house late at night because he knew people could still watch him on CSPAN).\nedit: Although this is not an end to CSPAN's broadcasting of the house - they just have to rely on the feed that the house provides rather than their own crews and cameras.",
">\n\nWhich, in all honesty is how they've operated for decades. This isn't in anyway new or partisan. We just got some cool footage due to there being no rules package until the speaker could get one voted on.",
">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!",
">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.",
">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube",
">\n\nI was watching on youtube",
">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?",
">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.",
">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠",
">\n\nThats literally not allowed",
">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.",
">\n\nI suppose I was hoping for too much. If this pattern continues, that's not a good sign for the Democrats in 2024, as that means a much tougher road.",
">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.",
">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.",
">\n\nIt won't be boring if the House fails to raise the debt ceiling and causes the US to default on its debts (due to already committed spending) and/or the federal government is forced to shutdown for an extended period of time. There are some thing that the House needs to do for our country to continue functioning, and I worry it won't be capable of doing so.",
">\n\n...that threat has happened nearly every session since I was in high school when Obama first got elected. Like legit that threat is made every time it comes about but they won't do that because it would devalue the dollar which makes them poorer. They can threaten it, they can posture, but at the end of the day their wallets will make them vote on it. B-o-r-i-n-g.",
">\n\nEvery other time the Republicans have made the threat it was pretty obviously a threat to try to get something. Right now we have at least 20 Republicans in the House who seem to legitimately want to hurt the country (and in particular the federal government) in whatever way they can, and I think they would actually follow through with it. I doubt it is even a majority of Republicans in the House who want that, but if it only takes 6 of them to oust McCarthy as Speaker, the only way I see to avoid it is for McCarthy's speakership to fail and a cross-party coalition to form in the House. Are there enough Republicans who would rather that happen than tear the whole thing down?",
">\n\nIt doesn't take 6 of them to remove McCarthy as speaker. That's assuming the Democrats would vote alongside the Q-Anon caucus to remove McCarthy, which is unlikely",
">\n\nI am assuming the Dems would vote to remove McCarthy as Speaker if anyone ever forces that vote. They didn't want him as Speaker to start with, so why wouldn't they vote to remove him if given the opportunity?",
">\n\nWhy would they vote to remove him as speaker if all they would get was someone from the Q-Anon caucus? They would not. The Q-Anon caucus is assuming the Democrats are as dumb as they are, which is not the case. They would have no reason to support them or give the Q-Anon caucus a political win. They might not like McCarthy, but giving power to someone even more destructive is not in their interest."
] |
>
Exactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!
|
[
"Includes rule that all bills must be available to read 72 hours before the vote. Also includes last-minute addition containing the final concessions given to the Freedom Caucus that only the handful of people that wrote it got to see before voting on it.",
">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.",
">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould you explain? I am trying to get this, but so far my reading of the rules package indicates that the new 72 hour rule only applies to Calendar Wednesday described in Clause 6(a) of rule XV. You say there is something that effects this under \"section 5\". Clause 5 of rule XV talks about the \"Private Calendar\" so this isn't the section 5 you are talking about.",
">\n\nSection 5, which starts on page 50 of the rules package will move into immediately passing 10 (exact count) bills and 2 concurrent resolutions that will not be read, all points of contention on the bills are waived, and only an hour debate split between parties for each.",
">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll points of order against the bills are waived. This is standard for special rules like this. Otherwise, what would be the point of using special rules?\n\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.",
">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.",
">\n\nI liked my life better when I was in my early 20’s and didn’t care about politics. Now, I just realize what a shit show this life really is.",
">\n\nThe good news is that you can be part of the solution now. And you're not alone. There were a ton of young voters turning out for the election last year.",
">\n\nHow? I’ve voted for the party that is promised to “solve” these problems in the last 3 elections and will continue to do so. It’s not a solution. Contributing to a stalemate is just beating your head against a wall. Voting means nothing in this country with gerrymandering and the electoral college. Not to mention voting for either party really just locks us into slow churning dysfunctional partisan politics at the congressional level.",
">\n\nUnfortunately, people have to keep voting until Democrats have a super majority in the Senate, and there are more progressives in their party to hold them accountable, if they want to see any meaningful change. That’s probably going to take a decade of consistently voting blue. This goes down the ballot to local state legislators. The only reason Republicans have control of the house is because of Gerrymandering in Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Tennessee, etc. State legislatures are the ones drawing the maps. Progress is slow, but taking away progress is relatively quick.",
">\n\nThat's ironic, given it was CSPAN in the house chambers that led to these clowns even getting a platform in the first place (Gingrich used to give speeches to an empty house late at night because he knew people could still watch him on CSPAN).\nedit: Although this is not an end to CSPAN's broadcasting of the house - they just have to rely on the feed that the house provides rather than their own crews and cameras.",
">\n\nWhich, in all honesty is how they've operated for decades. This isn't in anyway new or partisan. We just got some cool footage due to there being no rules package until the speaker could get one voted on.",
">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!",
">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.",
">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube",
">\n\nI was watching on youtube",
">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?",
">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.",
">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠",
">\n\nThats literally not allowed",
">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.",
">\n\nI suppose I was hoping for too much. If this pattern continues, that's not a good sign for the Democrats in 2024, as that means a much tougher road.",
">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.",
">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.",
">\n\nIt won't be boring if the House fails to raise the debt ceiling and causes the US to default on its debts (due to already committed spending) and/or the federal government is forced to shutdown for an extended period of time. There are some thing that the House needs to do for our country to continue functioning, and I worry it won't be capable of doing so.",
">\n\n...that threat has happened nearly every session since I was in high school when Obama first got elected. Like legit that threat is made every time it comes about but they won't do that because it would devalue the dollar which makes them poorer. They can threaten it, they can posture, but at the end of the day their wallets will make them vote on it. B-o-r-i-n-g.",
">\n\nEvery other time the Republicans have made the threat it was pretty obviously a threat to try to get something. Right now we have at least 20 Republicans in the House who seem to legitimately want to hurt the country (and in particular the federal government) in whatever way they can, and I think they would actually follow through with it. I doubt it is even a majority of Republicans in the House who want that, but if it only takes 6 of them to oust McCarthy as Speaker, the only way I see to avoid it is for McCarthy's speakership to fail and a cross-party coalition to form in the House. Are there enough Republicans who would rather that happen than tear the whole thing down?",
">\n\nIt doesn't take 6 of them to remove McCarthy as speaker. That's assuming the Democrats would vote alongside the Q-Anon caucus to remove McCarthy, which is unlikely",
">\n\nI am assuming the Dems would vote to remove McCarthy as Speaker if anyone ever forces that vote. They didn't want him as Speaker to start with, so why wouldn't they vote to remove him if given the opportunity?",
">\n\nWhy would they vote to remove him as speaker if all they would get was someone from the Q-Anon caucus? They would not. The Q-Anon caucus is assuming the Democrats are as dumb as they are, which is not the case. They would have no reason to support them or give the Q-Anon caucus a political win. They might not like McCarthy, but giving power to someone even more destructive is not in their interest.",
">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house."
] |
>
Will you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?
|
[
"Includes rule that all bills must be available to read 72 hours before the vote. Also includes last-minute addition containing the final concessions given to the Freedom Caucus that only the handful of people that wrote it got to see before voting on it.",
">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.",
">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould you explain? I am trying to get this, but so far my reading of the rules package indicates that the new 72 hour rule only applies to Calendar Wednesday described in Clause 6(a) of rule XV. You say there is something that effects this under \"section 5\". Clause 5 of rule XV talks about the \"Private Calendar\" so this isn't the section 5 you are talking about.",
">\n\nSection 5, which starts on page 50 of the rules package will move into immediately passing 10 (exact count) bills and 2 concurrent resolutions that will not be read, all points of contention on the bills are waived, and only an hour debate split between parties for each.",
">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll points of order against the bills are waived. This is standard for special rules like this. Otherwise, what would be the point of using special rules?\n\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.",
">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.",
">\n\nI liked my life better when I was in my early 20’s and didn’t care about politics. Now, I just realize what a shit show this life really is.",
">\n\nThe good news is that you can be part of the solution now. And you're not alone. There were a ton of young voters turning out for the election last year.",
">\n\nHow? I’ve voted for the party that is promised to “solve” these problems in the last 3 elections and will continue to do so. It’s not a solution. Contributing to a stalemate is just beating your head against a wall. Voting means nothing in this country with gerrymandering and the electoral college. Not to mention voting for either party really just locks us into slow churning dysfunctional partisan politics at the congressional level.",
">\n\nUnfortunately, people have to keep voting until Democrats have a super majority in the Senate, and there are more progressives in their party to hold them accountable, if they want to see any meaningful change. That’s probably going to take a decade of consistently voting blue. This goes down the ballot to local state legislators. The only reason Republicans have control of the house is because of Gerrymandering in Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Tennessee, etc. State legislatures are the ones drawing the maps. Progress is slow, but taking away progress is relatively quick.",
">\n\nThat's ironic, given it was CSPAN in the house chambers that led to these clowns even getting a platform in the first place (Gingrich used to give speeches to an empty house late at night because he knew people could still watch him on CSPAN).\nedit: Although this is not an end to CSPAN's broadcasting of the house - they just have to rely on the feed that the house provides rather than their own crews and cameras.",
">\n\nWhich, in all honesty is how they've operated for decades. This isn't in anyway new or partisan. We just got some cool footage due to there being no rules package until the speaker could get one voted on.",
">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!",
">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.",
">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube",
">\n\nI was watching on youtube",
">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?",
">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.",
">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠",
">\n\nThats literally not allowed",
">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.",
">\n\nI suppose I was hoping for too much. If this pattern continues, that's not a good sign for the Democrats in 2024, as that means a much tougher road.",
">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.",
">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.",
">\n\nIt won't be boring if the House fails to raise the debt ceiling and causes the US to default on its debts (due to already committed spending) and/or the federal government is forced to shutdown for an extended period of time. There are some thing that the House needs to do for our country to continue functioning, and I worry it won't be capable of doing so.",
">\n\n...that threat has happened nearly every session since I was in high school when Obama first got elected. Like legit that threat is made every time it comes about but they won't do that because it would devalue the dollar which makes them poorer. They can threaten it, they can posture, but at the end of the day their wallets will make them vote on it. B-o-r-i-n-g.",
">\n\nEvery other time the Republicans have made the threat it was pretty obviously a threat to try to get something. Right now we have at least 20 Republicans in the House who seem to legitimately want to hurt the country (and in particular the federal government) in whatever way they can, and I think they would actually follow through with it. I doubt it is even a majority of Republicans in the House who want that, but if it only takes 6 of them to oust McCarthy as Speaker, the only way I see to avoid it is for McCarthy's speakership to fail and a cross-party coalition to form in the House. Are there enough Republicans who would rather that happen than tear the whole thing down?",
">\n\nIt doesn't take 6 of them to remove McCarthy as speaker. That's assuming the Democrats would vote alongside the Q-Anon caucus to remove McCarthy, which is unlikely",
">\n\nI am assuming the Dems would vote to remove McCarthy as Speaker if anyone ever forces that vote. They didn't want him as Speaker to start with, so why wouldn't they vote to remove him if given the opportunity?",
">\n\nWhy would they vote to remove him as speaker if all they would get was someone from the Q-Anon caucus? They would not. The Q-Anon caucus is assuming the Democrats are as dumb as they are, which is not the case. They would have no reason to support them or give the Q-Anon caucus a political win. They might not like McCarthy, but giving power to someone even more destructive is not in their interest.",
">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.",
">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!"
] |
>
Sure, i can do that!
|
[
"Includes rule that all bills must be available to read 72 hours before the vote. Also includes last-minute addition containing the final concessions given to the Freedom Caucus that only the handful of people that wrote it got to see before voting on it.",
">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.",
">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould you explain? I am trying to get this, but so far my reading of the rules package indicates that the new 72 hour rule only applies to Calendar Wednesday described in Clause 6(a) of rule XV. You say there is something that effects this under \"section 5\". Clause 5 of rule XV talks about the \"Private Calendar\" so this isn't the section 5 you are talking about.",
">\n\nSection 5, which starts on page 50 of the rules package will move into immediately passing 10 (exact count) bills and 2 concurrent resolutions that will not be read, all points of contention on the bills are waived, and only an hour debate split between parties for each.",
">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll points of order against the bills are waived. This is standard for special rules like this. Otherwise, what would be the point of using special rules?\n\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.",
">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.",
">\n\nI liked my life better when I was in my early 20’s and didn’t care about politics. Now, I just realize what a shit show this life really is.",
">\n\nThe good news is that you can be part of the solution now. And you're not alone. There were a ton of young voters turning out for the election last year.",
">\n\nHow? I’ve voted for the party that is promised to “solve” these problems in the last 3 elections and will continue to do so. It’s not a solution. Contributing to a stalemate is just beating your head against a wall. Voting means nothing in this country with gerrymandering and the electoral college. Not to mention voting for either party really just locks us into slow churning dysfunctional partisan politics at the congressional level.",
">\n\nUnfortunately, people have to keep voting until Democrats have a super majority in the Senate, and there are more progressives in their party to hold them accountable, if they want to see any meaningful change. That’s probably going to take a decade of consistently voting blue. This goes down the ballot to local state legislators. The only reason Republicans have control of the house is because of Gerrymandering in Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Tennessee, etc. State legislatures are the ones drawing the maps. Progress is slow, but taking away progress is relatively quick.",
">\n\nThat's ironic, given it was CSPAN in the house chambers that led to these clowns even getting a platform in the first place (Gingrich used to give speeches to an empty house late at night because he knew people could still watch him on CSPAN).\nedit: Although this is not an end to CSPAN's broadcasting of the house - they just have to rely on the feed that the house provides rather than their own crews and cameras.",
">\n\nWhich, in all honesty is how they've operated for decades. This isn't in anyway new or partisan. We just got some cool footage due to there being no rules package until the speaker could get one voted on.",
">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!",
">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.",
">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube",
">\n\nI was watching on youtube",
">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?",
">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.",
">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠",
">\n\nThats literally not allowed",
">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.",
">\n\nI suppose I was hoping for too much. If this pattern continues, that's not a good sign for the Democrats in 2024, as that means a much tougher road.",
">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.",
">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.",
">\n\nIt won't be boring if the House fails to raise the debt ceiling and causes the US to default on its debts (due to already committed spending) and/or the federal government is forced to shutdown for an extended period of time. There are some thing that the House needs to do for our country to continue functioning, and I worry it won't be capable of doing so.",
">\n\n...that threat has happened nearly every session since I was in high school when Obama first got elected. Like legit that threat is made every time it comes about but they won't do that because it would devalue the dollar which makes them poorer. They can threaten it, they can posture, but at the end of the day their wallets will make them vote on it. B-o-r-i-n-g.",
">\n\nEvery other time the Republicans have made the threat it was pretty obviously a threat to try to get something. Right now we have at least 20 Republicans in the House who seem to legitimately want to hurt the country (and in particular the federal government) in whatever way they can, and I think they would actually follow through with it. I doubt it is even a majority of Republicans in the House who want that, but if it only takes 6 of them to oust McCarthy as Speaker, the only way I see to avoid it is for McCarthy's speakership to fail and a cross-party coalition to form in the House. Are there enough Republicans who would rather that happen than tear the whole thing down?",
">\n\nIt doesn't take 6 of them to remove McCarthy as speaker. That's assuming the Democrats would vote alongside the Q-Anon caucus to remove McCarthy, which is unlikely",
">\n\nI am assuming the Dems would vote to remove McCarthy as Speaker if anyone ever forces that vote. They didn't want him as Speaker to start with, so why wouldn't they vote to remove him if given the opportunity?",
">\n\nWhy would they vote to remove him as speaker if all they would get was someone from the Q-Anon caucus? They would not. The Q-Anon caucus is assuming the Democrats are as dumb as they are, which is not the case. They would have no reason to support them or give the Q-Anon caucus a political win. They might not like McCarthy, but giving power to someone even more destructive is not in their interest.",
">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.",
">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!",
">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?"
] |
>
Thanks!
|
[
"Includes rule that all bills must be available to read 72 hours before the vote. Also includes last-minute addition containing the final concessions given to the Freedom Caucus that only the handful of people that wrote it got to see before voting on it.",
">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.",
">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould you explain? I am trying to get this, but so far my reading of the rules package indicates that the new 72 hour rule only applies to Calendar Wednesday described in Clause 6(a) of rule XV. You say there is something that effects this under \"section 5\". Clause 5 of rule XV talks about the \"Private Calendar\" so this isn't the section 5 you are talking about.",
">\n\nSection 5, which starts on page 50 of the rules package will move into immediately passing 10 (exact count) bills and 2 concurrent resolutions that will not be read, all points of contention on the bills are waived, and only an hour debate split between parties for each.",
">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll points of order against the bills are waived. This is standard for special rules like this. Otherwise, what would be the point of using special rules?\n\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.",
">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.",
">\n\nI liked my life better when I was in my early 20’s and didn’t care about politics. Now, I just realize what a shit show this life really is.",
">\n\nThe good news is that you can be part of the solution now. And you're not alone. There were a ton of young voters turning out for the election last year.",
">\n\nHow? I’ve voted for the party that is promised to “solve” these problems in the last 3 elections and will continue to do so. It’s not a solution. Contributing to a stalemate is just beating your head against a wall. Voting means nothing in this country with gerrymandering and the electoral college. Not to mention voting for either party really just locks us into slow churning dysfunctional partisan politics at the congressional level.",
">\n\nUnfortunately, people have to keep voting until Democrats have a super majority in the Senate, and there are more progressives in their party to hold them accountable, if they want to see any meaningful change. That’s probably going to take a decade of consistently voting blue. This goes down the ballot to local state legislators. The only reason Republicans have control of the house is because of Gerrymandering in Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Tennessee, etc. State legislatures are the ones drawing the maps. Progress is slow, but taking away progress is relatively quick.",
">\n\nThat's ironic, given it was CSPAN in the house chambers that led to these clowns even getting a platform in the first place (Gingrich used to give speeches to an empty house late at night because he knew people could still watch him on CSPAN).\nedit: Although this is not an end to CSPAN's broadcasting of the house - they just have to rely on the feed that the house provides rather than their own crews and cameras.",
">\n\nWhich, in all honesty is how they've operated for decades. This isn't in anyway new or partisan. We just got some cool footage due to there being no rules package until the speaker could get one voted on.",
">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!",
">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.",
">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube",
">\n\nI was watching on youtube",
">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?",
">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.",
">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠",
">\n\nThats literally not allowed",
">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.",
">\n\nI suppose I was hoping for too much. If this pattern continues, that's not a good sign for the Democrats in 2024, as that means a much tougher road.",
">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.",
">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.",
">\n\nIt won't be boring if the House fails to raise the debt ceiling and causes the US to default on its debts (due to already committed spending) and/or the federal government is forced to shutdown for an extended period of time. There are some thing that the House needs to do for our country to continue functioning, and I worry it won't be capable of doing so.",
">\n\n...that threat has happened nearly every session since I was in high school when Obama first got elected. Like legit that threat is made every time it comes about but they won't do that because it would devalue the dollar which makes them poorer. They can threaten it, they can posture, but at the end of the day their wallets will make them vote on it. B-o-r-i-n-g.",
">\n\nEvery other time the Republicans have made the threat it was pretty obviously a threat to try to get something. Right now we have at least 20 Republicans in the House who seem to legitimately want to hurt the country (and in particular the federal government) in whatever way they can, and I think they would actually follow through with it. I doubt it is even a majority of Republicans in the House who want that, but if it only takes 6 of them to oust McCarthy as Speaker, the only way I see to avoid it is for McCarthy's speakership to fail and a cross-party coalition to form in the House. Are there enough Republicans who would rather that happen than tear the whole thing down?",
">\n\nIt doesn't take 6 of them to remove McCarthy as speaker. That's assuming the Democrats would vote alongside the Q-Anon caucus to remove McCarthy, which is unlikely",
">\n\nI am assuming the Dems would vote to remove McCarthy as Speaker if anyone ever forces that vote. They didn't want him as Speaker to start with, so why wouldn't they vote to remove him if given the opportunity?",
">\n\nWhy would they vote to remove him as speaker if all they would get was someone from the Q-Anon caucus? They would not. The Q-Anon caucus is assuming the Democrats are as dumb as they are, which is not the case. They would have no reason to support them or give the Q-Anon caucus a political win. They might not like McCarthy, but giving power to someone even more destructive is not in their interest.",
">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.",
">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!",
">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?",
">\n\nSure, i can do that!"
] |
>
I want to see motions to vacate every day.
|
[
"Includes rule that all bills must be available to read 72 hours before the vote. Also includes last-minute addition containing the final concessions given to the Freedom Caucus that only the handful of people that wrote it got to see before voting on it.",
">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.",
">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould you explain? I am trying to get this, but so far my reading of the rules package indicates that the new 72 hour rule only applies to Calendar Wednesday described in Clause 6(a) of rule XV. You say there is something that effects this under \"section 5\". Clause 5 of rule XV talks about the \"Private Calendar\" so this isn't the section 5 you are talking about.",
">\n\nSection 5, which starts on page 50 of the rules package will move into immediately passing 10 (exact count) bills and 2 concurrent resolutions that will not be read, all points of contention on the bills are waived, and only an hour debate split between parties for each.",
">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll points of order against the bills are waived. This is standard for special rules like this. Otherwise, what would be the point of using special rules?\n\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.",
">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.",
">\n\nI liked my life better when I was in my early 20’s and didn’t care about politics. Now, I just realize what a shit show this life really is.",
">\n\nThe good news is that you can be part of the solution now. And you're not alone. There were a ton of young voters turning out for the election last year.",
">\n\nHow? I’ve voted for the party that is promised to “solve” these problems in the last 3 elections and will continue to do so. It’s not a solution. Contributing to a stalemate is just beating your head against a wall. Voting means nothing in this country with gerrymandering and the electoral college. Not to mention voting for either party really just locks us into slow churning dysfunctional partisan politics at the congressional level.",
">\n\nUnfortunately, people have to keep voting until Democrats have a super majority in the Senate, and there are more progressives in their party to hold them accountable, if they want to see any meaningful change. That’s probably going to take a decade of consistently voting blue. This goes down the ballot to local state legislators. The only reason Republicans have control of the house is because of Gerrymandering in Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Tennessee, etc. State legislatures are the ones drawing the maps. Progress is slow, but taking away progress is relatively quick.",
">\n\nThat's ironic, given it was CSPAN in the house chambers that led to these clowns even getting a platform in the first place (Gingrich used to give speeches to an empty house late at night because he knew people could still watch him on CSPAN).\nedit: Although this is not an end to CSPAN's broadcasting of the house - they just have to rely on the feed that the house provides rather than their own crews and cameras.",
">\n\nWhich, in all honesty is how they've operated for decades. This isn't in anyway new or partisan. We just got some cool footage due to there being no rules package until the speaker could get one voted on.",
">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!",
">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.",
">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube",
">\n\nI was watching on youtube",
">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?",
">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.",
">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠",
">\n\nThats literally not allowed",
">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.",
">\n\nI suppose I was hoping for too much. If this pattern continues, that's not a good sign for the Democrats in 2024, as that means a much tougher road.",
">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.",
">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.",
">\n\nIt won't be boring if the House fails to raise the debt ceiling and causes the US to default on its debts (due to already committed spending) and/or the federal government is forced to shutdown for an extended period of time. There are some thing that the House needs to do for our country to continue functioning, and I worry it won't be capable of doing so.",
">\n\n...that threat has happened nearly every session since I was in high school when Obama first got elected. Like legit that threat is made every time it comes about but they won't do that because it would devalue the dollar which makes them poorer. They can threaten it, they can posture, but at the end of the day their wallets will make them vote on it. B-o-r-i-n-g.",
">\n\nEvery other time the Republicans have made the threat it was pretty obviously a threat to try to get something. Right now we have at least 20 Republicans in the House who seem to legitimately want to hurt the country (and in particular the federal government) in whatever way they can, and I think they would actually follow through with it. I doubt it is even a majority of Republicans in the House who want that, but if it only takes 6 of them to oust McCarthy as Speaker, the only way I see to avoid it is for McCarthy's speakership to fail and a cross-party coalition to form in the House. Are there enough Republicans who would rather that happen than tear the whole thing down?",
">\n\nIt doesn't take 6 of them to remove McCarthy as speaker. That's assuming the Democrats would vote alongside the Q-Anon caucus to remove McCarthy, which is unlikely",
">\n\nI am assuming the Dems would vote to remove McCarthy as Speaker if anyone ever forces that vote. They didn't want him as Speaker to start with, so why wouldn't they vote to remove him if given the opportunity?",
">\n\nWhy would they vote to remove him as speaker if all they would get was someone from the Q-Anon caucus? They would not. The Q-Anon caucus is assuming the Democrats are as dumb as they are, which is not the case. They would have no reason to support them or give the Q-Anon caucus a political win. They might not like McCarthy, but giving power to someone even more destructive is not in their interest.",
">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.",
">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!",
">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?",
">\n\nSure, i can do that!",
">\n\nThanks!"
] |
>
I make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞
|
[
"Includes rule that all bills must be available to read 72 hours before the vote. Also includes last-minute addition containing the final concessions given to the Freedom Caucus that only the handful of people that wrote it got to see before voting on it.",
">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.",
">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould you explain? I am trying to get this, but so far my reading of the rules package indicates that the new 72 hour rule only applies to Calendar Wednesday described in Clause 6(a) of rule XV. You say there is something that effects this under \"section 5\". Clause 5 of rule XV talks about the \"Private Calendar\" so this isn't the section 5 you are talking about.",
">\n\nSection 5, which starts on page 50 of the rules package will move into immediately passing 10 (exact count) bills and 2 concurrent resolutions that will not be read, all points of contention on the bills are waived, and only an hour debate split between parties for each.",
">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll points of order against the bills are waived. This is standard for special rules like this. Otherwise, what would be the point of using special rules?\n\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.",
">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.",
">\n\nI liked my life better when I was in my early 20’s and didn’t care about politics. Now, I just realize what a shit show this life really is.",
">\n\nThe good news is that you can be part of the solution now. And you're not alone. There were a ton of young voters turning out for the election last year.",
">\n\nHow? I’ve voted for the party that is promised to “solve” these problems in the last 3 elections and will continue to do so. It’s not a solution. Contributing to a stalemate is just beating your head against a wall. Voting means nothing in this country with gerrymandering and the electoral college. Not to mention voting for either party really just locks us into slow churning dysfunctional partisan politics at the congressional level.",
">\n\nUnfortunately, people have to keep voting until Democrats have a super majority in the Senate, and there are more progressives in their party to hold them accountable, if they want to see any meaningful change. That’s probably going to take a decade of consistently voting blue. This goes down the ballot to local state legislators. The only reason Republicans have control of the house is because of Gerrymandering in Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Tennessee, etc. State legislatures are the ones drawing the maps. Progress is slow, but taking away progress is relatively quick.",
">\n\nThat's ironic, given it was CSPAN in the house chambers that led to these clowns even getting a platform in the first place (Gingrich used to give speeches to an empty house late at night because he knew people could still watch him on CSPAN).\nedit: Although this is not an end to CSPAN's broadcasting of the house - they just have to rely on the feed that the house provides rather than their own crews and cameras.",
">\n\nWhich, in all honesty is how they've operated for decades. This isn't in anyway new or partisan. We just got some cool footage due to there being no rules package until the speaker could get one voted on.",
">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!",
">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.",
">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube",
">\n\nI was watching on youtube",
">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?",
">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.",
">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠",
">\n\nThats literally not allowed",
">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.",
">\n\nI suppose I was hoping for too much. If this pattern continues, that's not a good sign for the Democrats in 2024, as that means a much tougher road.",
">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.",
">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.",
">\n\nIt won't be boring if the House fails to raise the debt ceiling and causes the US to default on its debts (due to already committed spending) and/or the federal government is forced to shutdown for an extended period of time. There are some thing that the House needs to do for our country to continue functioning, and I worry it won't be capable of doing so.",
">\n\n...that threat has happened nearly every session since I was in high school when Obama first got elected. Like legit that threat is made every time it comes about but they won't do that because it would devalue the dollar which makes them poorer. They can threaten it, they can posture, but at the end of the day their wallets will make them vote on it. B-o-r-i-n-g.",
">\n\nEvery other time the Republicans have made the threat it was pretty obviously a threat to try to get something. Right now we have at least 20 Republicans in the House who seem to legitimately want to hurt the country (and in particular the federal government) in whatever way they can, and I think they would actually follow through with it. I doubt it is even a majority of Republicans in the House who want that, but if it only takes 6 of them to oust McCarthy as Speaker, the only way I see to avoid it is for McCarthy's speakership to fail and a cross-party coalition to form in the House. Are there enough Republicans who would rather that happen than tear the whole thing down?",
">\n\nIt doesn't take 6 of them to remove McCarthy as speaker. That's assuming the Democrats would vote alongside the Q-Anon caucus to remove McCarthy, which is unlikely",
">\n\nI am assuming the Dems would vote to remove McCarthy as Speaker if anyone ever forces that vote. They didn't want him as Speaker to start with, so why wouldn't they vote to remove him if given the opportunity?",
">\n\nWhy would they vote to remove him as speaker if all they would get was someone from the Q-Anon caucus? They would not. The Q-Anon caucus is assuming the Democrats are as dumb as they are, which is not the case. They would have no reason to support them or give the Q-Anon caucus a political win. They might not like McCarthy, but giving power to someone even more destructive is not in their interest.",
">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.",
">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!",
">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?",
">\n\nSure, i can do that!",
">\n\nThanks!",
">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day."
] |
>
This is going to be a long two years.
|
[
"Includes rule that all bills must be available to read 72 hours before the vote. Also includes last-minute addition containing the final concessions given to the Freedom Caucus that only the handful of people that wrote it got to see before voting on it.",
">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.",
">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould you explain? I am trying to get this, but so far my reading of the rules package indicates that the new 72 hour rule only applies to Calendar Wednesday described in Clause 6(a) of rule XV. You say there is something that effects this under \"section 5\". Clause 5 of rule XV talks about the \"Private Calendar\" so this isn't the section 5 you are talking about.",
">\n\nSection 5, which starts on page 50 of the rules package will move into immediately passing 10 (exact count) bills and 2 concurrent resolutions that will not be read, all points of contention on the bills are waived, and only an hour debate split between parties for each.",
">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll points of order against the bills are waived. This is standard for special rules like this. Otherwise, what would be the point of using special rules?\n\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.",
">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.",
">\n\nI liked my life better when I was in my early 20’s and didn’t care about politics. Now, I just realize what a shit show this life really is.",
">\n\nThe good news is that you can be part of the solution now. And you're not alone. There were a ton of young voters turning out for the election last year.",
">\n\nHow? I’ve voted for the party that is promised to “solve” these problems in the last 3 elections and will continue to do so. It’s not a solution. Contributing to a stalemate is just beating your head against a wall. Voting means nothing in this country with gerrymandering and the electoral college. Not to mention voting for either party really just locks us into slow churning dysfunctional partisan politics at the congressional level.",
">\n\nUnfortunately, people have to keep voting until Democrats have a super majority in the Senate, and there are more progressives in their party to hold them accountable, if they want to see any meaningful change. That’s probably going to take a decade of consistently voting blue. This goes down the ballot to local state legislators. The only reason Republicans have control of the house is because of Gerrymandering in Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Tennessee, etc. State legislatures are the ones drawing the maps. Progress is slow, but taking away progress is relatively quick.",
">\n\nThat's ironic, given it was CSPAN in the house chambers that led to these clowns even getting a platform in the first place (Gingrich used to give speeches to an empty house late at night because he knew people could still watch him on CSPAN).\nedit: Although this is not an end to CSPAN's broadcasting of the house - they just have to rely on the feed that the house provides rather than their own crews and cameras.",
">\n\nWhich, in all honesty is how they've operated for decades. This isn't in anyway new or partisan. We just got some cool footage due to there being no rules package until the speaker could get one voted on.",
">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!",
">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.",
">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube",
">\n\nI was watching on youtube",
">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?",
">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.",
">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠",
">\n\nThats literally not allowed",
">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.",
">\n\nI suppose I was hoping for too much. If this pattern continues, that's not a good sign for the Democrats in 2024, as that means a much tougher road.",
">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.",
">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.",
">\n\nIt won't be boring if the House fails to raise the debt ceiling and causes the US to default on its debts (due to already committed spending) and/or the federal government is forced to shutdown for an extended period of time. There are some thing that the House needs to do for our country to continue functioning, and I worry it won't be capable of doing so.",
">\n\n...that threat has happened nearly every session since I was in high school when Obama first got elected. Like legit that threat is made every time it comes about but they won't do that because it would devalue the dollar which makes them poorer. They can threaten it, they can posture, but at the end of the day their wallets will make them vote on it. B-o-r-i-n-g.",
">\n\nEvery other time the Republicans have made the threat it was pretty obviously a threat to try to get something. Right now we have at least 20 Republicans in the House who seem to legitimately want to hurt the country (and in particular the federal government) in whatever way they can, and I think they would actually follow through with it. I doubt it is even a majority of Republicans in the House who want that, but if it only takes 6 of them to oust McCarthy as Speaker, the only way I see to avoid it is for McCarthy's speakership to fail and a cross-party coalition to form in the House. Are there enough Republicans who would rather that happen than tear the whole thing down?",
">\n\nIt doesn't take 6 of them to remove McCarthy as speaker. That's assuming the Democrats would vote alongside the Q-Anon caucus to remove McCarthy, which is unlikely",
">\n\nI am assuming the Dems would vote to remove McCarthy as Speaker if anyone ever forces that vote. They didn't want him as Speaker to start with, so why wouldn't they vote to remove him if given the opportunity?",
">\n\nWhy would they vote to remove him as speaker if all they would get was someone from the Q-Anon caucus? They would not. The Q-Anon caucus is assuming the Democrats are as dumb as they are, which is not the case. They would have no reason to support them or give the Q-Anon caucus a political win. They might not like McCarthy, but giving power to someone even more destructive is not in their interest.",
">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.",
">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!",
">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?",
">\n\nSure, i can do that!",
">\n\nThanks!",
">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.",
">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞"
] |
>
I guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...
|
[
"Includes rule that all bills must be available to read 72 hours before the vote. Also includes last-minute addition containing the final concessions given to the Freedom Caucus that only the handful of people that wrote it got to see before voting on it.",
">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.",
">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould you explain? I am trying to get this, but so far my reading of the rules package indicates that the new 72 hour rule only applies to Calendar Wednesday described in Clause 6(a) of rule XV. You say there is something that effects this under \"section 5\". Clause 5 of rule XV talks about the \"Private Calendar\" so this isn't the section 5 you are talking about.",
">\n\nSection 5, which starts on page 50 of the rules package will move into immediately passing 10 (exact count) bills and 2 concurrent resolutions that will not be read, all points of contention on the bills are waived, and only an hour debate split between parties for each.",
">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll points of order against the bills are waived. This is standard for special rules like this. Otherwise, what would be the point of using special rules?\n\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.",
">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.",
">\n\nI liked my life better when I was in my early 20’s and didn’t care about politics. Now, I just realize what a shit show this life really is.",
">\n\nThe good news is that you can be part of the solution now. And you're not alone. There were a ton of young voters turning out for the election last year.",
">\n\nHow? I’ve voted for the party that is promised to “solve” these problems in the last 3 elections and will continue to do so. It’s not a solution. Contributing to a stalemate is just beating your head against a wall. Voting means nothing in this country with gerrymandering and the electoral college. Not to mention voting for either party really just locks us into slow churning dysfunctional partisan politics at the congressional level.",
">\n\nUnfortunately, people have to keep voting until Democrats have a super majority in the Senate, and there are more progressives in their party to hold them accountable, if they want to see any meaningful change. That’s probably going to take a decade of consistently voting blue. This goes down the ballot to local state legislators. The only reason Republicans have control of the house is because of Gerrymandering in Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Tennessee, etc. State legislatures are the ones drawing the maps. Progress is slow, but taking away progress is relatively quick.",
">\n\nThat's ironic, given it was CSPAN in the house chambers that led to these clowns even getting a platform in the first place (Gingrich used to give speeches to an empty house late at night because he knew people could still watch him on CSPAN).\nedit: Although this is not an end to CSPAN's broadcasting of the house - they just have to rely on the feed that the house provides rather than their own crews and cameras.",
">\n\nWhich, in all honesty is how they've operated for decades. This isn't in anyway new or partisan. We just got some cool footage due to there being no rules package until the speaker could get one voted on.",
">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!",
">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.",
">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube",
">\n\nI was watching on youtube",
">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?",
">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.",
">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠",
">\n\nThats literally not allowed",
">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.",
">\n\nI suppose I was hoping for too much. If this pattern continues, that's not a good sign for the Democrats in 2024, as that means a much tougher road.",
">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.",
">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.",
">\n\nIt won't be boring if the House fails to raise the debt ceiling and causes the US to default on its debts (due to already committed spending) and/or the federal government is forced to shutdown for an extended period of time. There are some thing that the House needs to do for our country to continue functioning, and I worry it won't be capable of doing so.",
">\n\n...that threat has happened nearly every session since I was in high school when Obama first got elected. Like legit that threat is made every time it comes about but they won't do that because it would devalue the dollar which makes them poorer. They can threaten it, they can posture, but at the end of the day their wallets will make them vote on it. B-o-r-i-n-g.",
">\n\nEvery other time the Republicans have made the threat it was pretty obviously a threat to try to get something. Right now we have at least 20 Republicans in the House who seem to legitimately want to hurt the country (and in particular the federal government) in whatever way they can, and I think they would actually follow through with it. I doubt it is even a majority of Republicans in the House who want that, but if it only takes 6 of them to oust McCarthy as Speaker, the only way I see to avoid it is for McCarthy's speakership to fail and a cross-party coalition to form in the House. Are there enough Republicans who would rather that happen than tear the whole thing down?",
">\n\nIt doesn't take 6 of them to remove McCarthy as speaker. That's assuming the Democrats would vote alongside the Q-Anon caucus to remove McCarthy, which is unlikely",
">\n\nI am assuming the Dems would vote to remove McCarthy as Speaker if anyone ever forces that vote. They didn't want him as Speaker to start with, so why wouldn't they vote to remove him if given the opportunity?",
">\n\nWhy would they vote to remove him as speaker if all they would get was someone from the Q-Anon caucus? They would not. The Q-Anon caucus is assuming the Democrats are as dumb as they are, which is not the case. They would have no reason to support them or give the Q-Anon caucus a political win. They might not like McCarthy, but giving power to someone even more destructive is not in their interest.",
">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.",
">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!",
">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?",
">\n\nSure, i can do that!",
">\n\nThanks!",
">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.",
">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞",
">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years."
] |
>
Go along to get along.
|
[
"Includes rule that all bills must be available to read 72 hours before the vote. Also includes last-minute addition containing the final concessions given to the Freedom Caucus that only the handful of people that wrote it got to see before voting on it.",
">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.",
">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould you explain? I am trying to get this, but so far my reading of the rules package indicates that the new 72 hour rule only applies to Calendar Wednesday described in Clause 6(a) of rule XV. You say there is something that effects this under \"section 5\". Clause 5 of rule XV talks about the \"Private Calendar\" so this isn't the section 5 you are talking about.",
">\n\nSection 5, which starts on page 50 of the rules package will move into immediately passing 10 (exact count) bills and 2 concurrent resolutions that will not be read, all points of contention on the bills are waived, and only an hour debate split between parties for each.",
">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll points of order against the bills are waived. This is standard for special rules like this. Otherwise, what would be the point of using special rules?\n\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.",
">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.",
">\n\nI liked my life better when I was in my early 20’s and didn’t care about politics. Now, I just realize what a shit show this life really is.",
">\n\nThe good news is that you can be part of the solution now. And you're not alone. There were a ton of young voters turning out for the election last year.",
">\n\nHow? I’ve voted for the party that is promised to “solve” these problems in the last 3 elections and will continue to do so. It’s not a solution. Contributing to a stalemate is just beating your head against a wall. Voting means nothing in this country with gerrymandering and the electoral college. Not to mention voting for either party really just locks us into slow churning dysfunctional partisan politics at the congressional level.",
">\n\nUnfortunately, people have to keep voting until Democrats have a super majority in the Senate, and there are more progressives in their party to hold them accountable, if they want to see any meaningful change. That’s probably going to take a decade of consistently voting blue. This goes down the ballot to local state legislators. The only reason Republicans have control of the house is because of Gerrymandering in Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Tennessee, etc. State legislatures are the ones drawing the maps. Progress is slow, but taking away progress is relatively quick.",
">\n\nThat's ironic, given it was CSPAN in the house chambers that led to these clowns even getting a platform in the first place (Gingrich used to give speeches to an empty house late at night because he knew people could still watch him on CSPAN).\nedit: Although this is not an end to CSPAN's broadcasting of the house - they just have to rely on the feed that the house provides rather than their own crews and cameras.",
">\n\nWhich, in all honesty is how they've operated for decades. This isn't in anyway new or partisan. We just got some cool footage due to there being no rules package until the speaker could get one voted on.",
">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!",
">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.",
">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube",
">\n\nI was watching on youtube",
">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?",
">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.",
">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠",
">\n\nThats literally not allowed",
">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.",
">\n\nI suppose I was hoping for too much. If this pattern continues, that's not a good sign for the Democrats in 2024, as that means a much tougher road.",
">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.",
">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.",
">\n\nIt won't be boring if the House fails to raise the debt ceiling and causes the US to default on its debts (due to already committed spending) and/or the federal government is forced to shutdown for an extended period of time. There are some thing that the House needs to do for our country to continue functioning, and I worry it won't be capable of doing so.",
">\n\n...that threat has happened nearly every session since I was in high school when Obama first got elected. Like legit that threat is made every time it comes about but they won't do that because it would devalue the dollar which makes them poorer. They can threaten it, they can posture, but at the end of the day their wallets will make them vote on it. B-o-r-i-n-g.",
">\n\nEvery other time the Republicans have made the threat it was pretty obviously a threat to try to get something. Right now we have at least 20 Republicans in the House who seem to legitimately want to hurt the country (and in particular the federal government) in whatever way they can, and I think they would actually follow through with it. I doubt it is even a majority of Republicans in the House who want that, but if it only takes 6 of them to oust McCarthy as Speaker, the only way I see to avoid it is for McCarthy's speakership to fail and a cross-party coalition to form in the House. Are there enough Republicans who would rather that happen than tear the whole thing down?",
">\n\nIt doesn't take 6 of them to remove McCarthy as speaker. That's assuming the Democrats would vote alongside the Q-Anon caucus to remove McCarthy, which is unlikely",
">\n\nI am assuming the Dems would vote to remove McCarthy as Speaker if anyone ever forces that vote. They didn't want him as Speaker to start with, so why wouldn't they vote to remove him if given the opportunity?",
">\n\nWhy would they vote to remove him as speaker if all they would get was someone from the Q-Anon caucus? They would not. The Q-Anon caucus is assuming the Democrats are as dumb as they are, which is not the case. They would have no reason to support them or give the Q-Anon caucus a political win. They might not like McCarthy, but giving power to someone even more destructive is not in their interest.",
">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.",
">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!",
">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?",
">\n\nSure, i can do that!",
">\n\nThanks!",
">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.",
">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞",
">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.",
">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it..."
] |
>
Which just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.
|
[
"Includes rule that all bills must be available to read 72 hours before the vote. Also includes last-minute addition containing the final concessions given to the Freedom Caucus that only the handful of people that wrote it got to see before voting on it.",
">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.",
">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould you explain? I am trying to get this, but so far my reading of the rules package indicates that the new 72 hour rule only applies to Calendar Wednesday described in Clause 6(a) of rule XV. You say there is something that effects this under \"section 5\". Clause 5 of rule XV talks about the \"Private Calendar\" so this isn't the section 5 you are talking about.",
">\n\nSection 5, which starts on page 50 of the rules package will move into immediately passing 10 (exact count) bills and 2 concurrent resolutions that will not be read, all points of contention on the bills are waived, and only an hour debate split between parties for each.",
">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll points of order against the bills are waived. This is standard for special rules like this. Otherwise, what would be the point of using special rules?\n\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.",
">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.",
">\n\nI liked my life better when I was in my early 20’s and didn’t care about politics. Now, I just realize what a shit show this life really is.",
">\n\nThe good news is that you can be part of the solution now. And you're not alone. There were a ton of young voters turning out for the election last year.",
">\n\nHow? I’ve voted for the party that is promised to “solve” these problems in the last 3 elections and will continue to do so. It’s not a solution. Contributing to a stalemate is just beating your head against a wall. Voting means nothing in this country with gerrymandering and the electoral college. Not to mention voting for either party really just locks us into slow churning dysfunctional partisan politics at the congressional level.",
">\n\nUnfortunately, people have to keep voting until Democrats have a super majority in the Senate, and there are more progressives in their party to hold them accountable, if they want to see any meaningful change. That’s probably going to take a decade of consistently voting blue. This goes down the ballot to local state legislators. The only reason Republicans have control of the house is because of Gerrymandering in Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Tennessee, etc. State legislatures are the ones drawing the maps. Progress is slow, but taking away progress is relatively quick.",
">\n\nThat's ironic, given it was CSPAN in the house chambers that led to these clowns even getting a platform in the first place (Gingrich used to give speeches to an empty house late at night because he knew people could still watch him on CSPAN).\nedit: Although this is not an end to CSPAN's broadcasting of the house - they just have to rely on the feed that the house provides rather than their own crews and cameras.",
">\n\nWhich, in all honesty is how they've operated for decades. This isn't in anyway new or partisan. We just got some cool footage due to there being no rules package until the speaker could get one voted on.",
">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!",
">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.",
">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube",
">\n\nI was watching on youtube",
">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?",
">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.",
">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠",
">\n\nThats literally not allowed",
">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.",
">\n\nI suppose I was hoping for too much. If this pattern continues, that's not a good sign for the Democrats in 2024, as that means a much tougher road.",
">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.",
">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.",
">\n\nIt won't be boring if the House fails to raise the debt ceiling and causes the US to default on its debts (due to already committed spending) and/or the federal government is forced to shutdown for an extended period of time. There are some thing that the House needs to do for our country to continue functioning, and I worry it won't be capable of doing so.",
">\n\n...that threat has happened nearly every session since I was in high school when Obama first got elected. Like legit that threat is made every time it comes about but they won't do that because it would devalue the dollar which makes them poorer. They can threaten it, they can posture, but at the end of the day their wallets will make them vote on it. B-o-r-i-n-g.",
">\n\nEvery other time the Republicans have made the threat it was pretty obviously a threat to try to get something. Right now we have at least 20 Republicans in the House who seem to legitimately want to hurt the country (and in particular the federal government) in whatever way they can, and I think they would actually follow through with it. I doubt it is even a majority of Republicans in the House who want that, but if it only takes 6 of them to oust McCarthy as Speaker, the only way I see to avoid it is for McCarthy's speakership to fail and a cross-party coalition to form in the House. Are there enough Republicans who would rather that happen than tear the whole thing down?",
">\n\nIt doesn't take 6 of them to remove McCarthy as speaker. That's assuming the Democrats would vote alongside the Q-Anon caucus to remove McCarthy, which is unlikely",
">\n\nI am assuming the Dems would vote to remove McCarthy as Speaker if anyone ever forces that vote. They didn't want him as Speaker to start with, so why wouldn't they vote to remove him if given the opportunity?",
">\n\nWhy would they vote to remove him as speaker if all they would get was someone from the Q-Anon caucus? They would not. The Q-Anon caucus is assuming the Democrats are as dumb as they are, which is not the case. They would have no reason to support them or give the Q-Anon caucus a political win. They might not like McCarthy, but giving power to someone even more destructive is not in their interest.",
">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.",
">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!",
">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?",
">\n\nSure, i can do that!",
">\n\nThanks!",
">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.",
">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞",
">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.",
">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...",
">\n\nGo along to get along."
] |
>
So everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.
|
[
"Includes rule that all bills must be available to read 72 hours before the vote. Also includes last-minute addition containing the final concessions given to the Freedom Caucus that only the handful of people that wrote it got to see before voting on it.",
">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.",
">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould you explain? I am trying to get this, but so far my reading of the rules package indicates that the new 72 hour rule only applies to Calendar Wednesday described in Clause 6(a) of rule XV. You say there is something that effects this under \"section 5\". Clause 5 of rule XV talks about the \"Private Calendar\" so this isn't the section 5 you are talking about.",
">\n\nSection 5, which starts on page 50 of the rules package will move into immediately passing 10 (exact count) bills and 2 concurrent resolutions that will not be read, all points of contention on the bills are waived, and only an hour debate split between parties for each.",
">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll points of order against the bills are waived. This is standard for special rules like this. Otherwise, what would be the point of using special rules?\n\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.",
">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.",
">\n\nI liked my life better when I was in my early 20’s and didn’t care about politics. Now, I just realize what a shit show this life really is.",
">\n\nThe good news is that you can be part of the solution now. And you're not alone. There were a ton of young voters turning out for the election last year.",
">\n\nHow? I’ve voted for the party that is promised to “solve” these problems in the last 3 elections and will continue to do so. It’s not a solution. Contributing to a stalemate is just beating your head against a wall. Voting means nothing in this country with gerrymandering and the electoral college. Not to mention voting for either party really just locks us into slow churning dysfunctional partisan politics at the congressional level.",
">\n\nUnfortunately, people have to keep voting until Democrats have a super majority in the Senate, and there are more progressives in their party to hold them accountable, if they want to see any meaningful change. That’s probably going to take a decade of consistently voting blue. This goes down the ballot to local state legislators. The only reason Republicans have control of the house is because of Gerrymandering in Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Tennessee, etc. State legislatures are the ones drawing the maps. Progress is slow, but taking away progress is relatively quick.",
">\n\nThat's ironic, given it was CSPAN in the house chambers that led to these clowns even getting a platform in the first place (Gingrich used to give speeches to an empty house late at night because he knew people could still watch him on CSPAN).\nedit: Although this is not an end to CSPAN's broadcasting of the house - they just have to rely on the feed that the house provides rather than their own crews and cameras.",
">\n\nWhich, in all honesty is how they've operated for decades. This isn't in anyway new or partisan. We just got some cool footage due to there being no rules package until the speaker could get one voted on.",
">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!",
">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.",
">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube",
">\n\nI was watching on youtube",
">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?",
">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.",
">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠",
">\n\nThats literally not allowed",
">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.",
">\n\nI suppose I was hoping for too much. If this pattern continues, that's not a good sign for the Democrats in 2024, as that means a much tougher road.",
">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.",
">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.",
">\n\nIt won't be boring if the House fails to raise the debt ceiling and causes the US to default on its debts (due to already committed spending) and/or the federal government is forced to shutdown for an extended period of time. There are some thing that the House needs to do for our country to continue functioning, and I worry it won't be capable of doing so.",
">\n\n...that threat has happened nearly every session since I was in high school when Obama first got elected. Like legit that threat is made every time it comes about but they won't do that because it would devalue the dollar which makes them poorer. They can threaten it, they can posture, but at the end of the day their wallets will make them vote on it. B-o-r-i-n-g.",
">\n\nEvery other time the Republicans have made the threat it was pretty obviously a threat to try to get something. Right now we have at least 20 Republicans in the House who seem to legitimately want to hurt the country (and in particular the federal government) in whatever way they can, and I think they would actually follow through with it. I doubt it is even a majority of Republicans in the House who want that, but if it only takes 6 of them to oust McCarthy as Speaker, the only way I see to avoid it is for McCarthy's speakership to fail and a cross-party coalition to form in the House. Are there enough Republicans who would rather that happen than tear the whole thing down?",
">\n\nIt doesn't take 6 of them to remove McCarthy as speaker. That's assuming the Democrats would vote alongside the Q-Anon caucus to remove McCarthy, which is unlikely",
">\n\nI am assuming the Dems would vote to remove McCarthy as Speaker if anyone ever forces that vote. They didn't want him as Speaker to start with, so why wouldn't they vote to remove him if given the opportunity?",
">\n\nWhy would they vote to remove him as speaker if all they would get was someone from the Q-Anon caucus? They would not. The Q-Anon caucus is assuming the Democrats are as dumb as they are, which is not the case. They would have no reason to support them or give the Q-Anon caucus a political win. They might not like McCarthy, but giving power to someone even more destructive is not in their interest.",
">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.",
">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!",
">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?",
">\n\nSure, i can do that!",
">\n\nThanks!",
">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.",
">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞",
">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.",
">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...",
">\n\nGo along to get along.",
">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish."
] |
>
I think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:
1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority
2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.
|
[
"Includes rule that all bills must be available to read 72 hours before the vote. Also includes last-minute addition containing the final concessions given to the Freedom Caucus that only the handful of people that wrote it got to see before voting on it.",
">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.",
">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould you explain? I am trying to get this, but so far my reading of the rules package indicates that the new 72 hour rule only applies to Calendar Wednesday described in Clause 6(a) of rule XV. You say there is something that effects this under \"section 5\". Clause 5 of rule XV talks about the \"Private Calendar\" so this isn't the section 5 you are talking about.",
">\n\nSection 5, which starts on page 50 of the rules package will move into immediately passing 10 (exact count) bills and 2 concurrent resolutions that will not be read, all points of contention on the bills are waived, and only an hour debate split between parties for each.",
">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll points of order against the bills are waived. This is standard for special rules like this. Otherwise, what would be the point of using special rules?\n\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.",
">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.",
">\n\nI liked my life better when I was in my early 20’s and didn’t care about politics. Now, I just realize what a shit show this life really is.",
">\n\nThe good news is that you can be part of the solution now. And you're not alone. There were a ton of young voters turning out for the election last year.",
">\n\nHow? I’ve voted for the party that is promised to “solve” these problems in the last 3 elections and will continue to do so. It’s not a solution. Contributing to a stalemate is just beating your head against a wall. Voting means nothing in this country with gerrymandering and the electoral college. Not to mention voting for either party really just locks us into slow churning dysfunctional partisan politics at the congressional level.",
">\n\nUnfortunately, people have to keep voting until Democrats have a super majority in the Senate, and there are more progressives in their party to hold them accountable, if they want to see any meaningful change. That’s probably going to take a decade of consistently voting blue. This goes down the ballot to local state legislators. The only reason Republicans have control of the house is because of Gerrymandering in Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Tennessee, etc. State legislatures are the ones drawing the maps. Progress is slow, but taking away progress is relatively quick.",
">\n\nThat's ironic, given it was CSPAN in the house chambers that led to these clowns even getting a platform in the first place (Gingrich used to give speeches to an empty house late at night because he knew people could still watch him on CSPAN).\nedit: Although this is not an end to CSPAN's broadcasting of the house - they just have to rely on the feed that the house provides rather than their own crews and cameras.",
">\n\nWhich, in all honesty is how they've operated for decades. This isn't in anyway new or partisan. We just got some cool footage due to there being no rules package until the speaker could get one voted on.",
">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!",
">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.",
">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube",
">\n\nI was watching on youtube",
">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?",
">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.",
">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠",
">\n\nThats literally not allowed",
">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.",
">\n\nI suppose I was hoping for too much. If this pattern continues, that's not a good sign for the Democrats in 2024, as that means a much tougher road.",
">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.",
">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.",
">\n\nIt won't be boring if the House fails to raise the debt ceiling and causes the US to default on its debts (due to already committed spending) and/or the federal government is forced to shutdown for an extended period of time. There are some thing that the House needs to do for our country to continue functioning, and I worry it won't be capable of doing so.",
">\n\n...that threat has happened nearly every session since I was in high school when Obama first got elected. Like legit that threat is made every time it comes about but they won't do that because it would devalue the dollar which makes them poorer. They can threaten it, they can posture, but at the end of the day their wallets will make them vote on it. B-o-r-i-n-g.",
">\n\nEvery other time the Republicans have made the threat it was pretty obviously a threat to try to get something. Right now we have at least 20 Republicans in the House who seem to legitimately want to hurt the country (and in particular the federal government) in whatever way they can, and I think they would actually follow through with it. I doubt it is even a majority of Republicans in the House who want that, but if it only takes 6 of them to oust McCarthy as Speaker, the only way I see to avoid it is for McCarthy's speakership to fail and a cross-party coalition to form in the House. Are there enough Republicans who would rather that happen than tear the whole thing down?",
">\n\nIt doesn't take 6 of them to remove McCarthy as speaker. That's assuming the Democrats would vote alongside the Q-Anon caucus to remove McCarthy, which is unlikely",
">\n\nI am assuming the Dems would vote to remove McCarthy as Speaker if anyone ever forces that vote. They didn't want him as Speaker to start with, so why wouldn't they vote to remove him if given the opportunity?",
">\n\nWhy would they vote to remove him as speaker if all they would get was someone from the Q-Anon caucus? They would not. The Q-Anon caucus is assuming the Democrats are as dumb as they are, which is not the case. They would have no reason to support them or give the Q-Anon caucus a political win. They might not like McCarthy, but giving power to someone even more destructive is not in their interest.",
">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.",
">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!",
">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?",
">\n\nSure, i can do that!",
">\n\nThanks!",
">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.",
">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞",
">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.",
">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...",
">\n\nGo along to get along.",
">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.",
">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate."
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.