Author Topic: Kevin McCarthy’s fate on the line, House conservatives warn speaker’s election could take days  (Read 10639 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36,868
DeSantis First to Question McCarthy's Leadership in Republican-led House

DeSantis accused Ryan and McCarthy of barring him and other Republicans from investigating the Clintons and Awan.

MICHELLE ROSENBERG  |  NOVEMBER 28, 2022


The pushback against House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s leadership continues and it appears that the case against the embattled and potential future Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives was first made by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

During an exclusive interview with Floridian Publisher Javier Manjarrés in October 2017, then-Congressman Ron DeSantis first expressed his lack of faith in House Republican Leadership over its refusal to investigate the Clinton Foundation and former House staffer Imran Awan.

Imran Awan, the House IT aide who was associated with an individual with ties to the terror group Hezbollah and arrested on a federal bank fraud charge, was never called to testify before the House Oversight Committee DeSantis sat on, or any other congressional committee under then-Speaker Paul Ryan and then-Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy.

“Part of the frustration that I have had, the House and Republican rule has not been as effective as it needs to be in doing oversight,” said Rep. DeSantis.  .  .  .

https://floridianpress.com/2022/11/desantis-first-to-question-mccarthys-leadership-in-republican-led-house/



Thank you for bringing up DeSantis, @Mesaclone .  I am now more convinced than ever that the 21 Republican rebels are doing the right thing.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-


"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."

-Ayn Rand-

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36,868
Ummmm.....that was from 2017.

Yeah.  McCarthy sucked back then.  And he still sucks today.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-


"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."

-Ayn Rand-

Offline Mesaclone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,407
I want it to end, too.  So McCarthy needs to put his ego away and step aside for the good of the Party.

There's no one else the other 202 House GOP members support...so your plan leads to unending stalemate. Brilliant.
We have the best government that money can buy. Mark Twain

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36,868
There's no one else the other 202 House GOP members support...so your plan leads to unending stalemate. Brilliant.

Remove McCarthy from the equation, and you will find that your premise is false.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-


"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."

-Ayn Rand-

Offline Mesaclone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,407
Remove McCarthy from the equation, and you will find that your premise is false.

Doubt it. The RINO's won't accept a Freedom Caucus  or a "Trump" guy...so who do you think that leaves who can meet your "perfect Conservative ideal?
We have the best government that money can buy. Mark Twain

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36,868
Doubt it. The RINO's won't accept a Freedom Caucus  or a "Trump" guy...so who do you think that leaves who can meet your "perfect Conservative ideal?

So you think the 201 will simply not vote, or vote 'Present', if McCarthy withdraws?  There's not a single other person they would vote for?
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-


"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."

-Ayn Rand-

Offline Mesaclone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,407
So you think the 201 will simply not vote, or vote 'Present', if McCarthy withdraws?  There's not a single other person they would vote for?

I think you'll get a LESS conservative Speaker...or a Dem...or an outsider Republican like Amash, Cheney or Kinzinger. But what's worse, is these 19 idiots have gutted every Conservative candidates credibility through the 24 election cycle. We all look like morons who can't govern and voters do not forgive incompetence...so thanks for that...hope you guys are excited for a Dem House, White House and Senate thanks to this "holdout".
We have the best government that money can buy. Mark Twain

Offline DB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,496
I think you'll get a LESS conservative Speaker...or a Dem...or an outsider Republican like Amash, Cheney or Kinzinger. But what's worse, is these 19 idiots have gutted every Conservative candidates credibility through the 24 election cycle. We all look like morons who can't govern and voters do not forgive incompetence...so thanks for that...hope you guys are excited for a Dem House, White House and Senate thanks to this "holdout".

You are really full of it running around with your hair on fire. Cheney or Kinzinger, really? They aren't even in the house anymore and are pretty universally hated by Republicans.

All the actual conservatives I know are grateful the hold outs are taking an actual stab at the swamp status quo trying to move it in a different direction.

Offline Mesaclone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,407
You are really full of it running around with your hair on fire. Cheney or Kinzinger, really? They aren't even in the house anymore and are pretty universally hated by Republicans.

All the actual conservatives I know are grateful the hold outs are taking an actual stab at the swamp status quo trying to move it in a different direction.

10 Rinos and the Dem vote and they are Speaker.
We have the best government that money can buy. Mark Twain

Offline DB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,496
10 Rinos and the Dem vote and they are Speaker.

Then you really would get a Republican revolt against DC. Cheney and Kinzinger are the Democrats useful idiots, not someone they want as their leader.

Offline Mesaclone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,407
Then you really would get a Republican revolt against DC. Cheney and Kinzinger are the Democrats useful idiots, not someone they want as their leader.

It wouldn't matter. The 10 RINO's don't care about a Republican revolt...and neither do the Dems. They can run the whole place the way they want to...and it will look like THEY are the grownups in DC. That's what you are brewing with this idiocy.
We have the best government that money can buy. Mark Twain

Offline jmyrlefuller

  • J. Myrle Fuller
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,398
  • Gender: Male
  • Realistic nihilist
    • Fullervision


Oh. So now you side with 212 Democrats. So its rather clear who is with who now.


This stupidity is going to give us a Justin Amash, Lynn Cheney, or an Adam Kinzinger as Speaker of the House...all because we have 19 morons with a severe case of moral narcissism.

Anyone supporting this garbage...is...like Hoodat in his post above...now WITH the 212 Democrats in the House. Be known by the company you keep.
I would be thrilled with a Justin Amash speakership. A guy who thinks the GOP is too far left for him to be a part? That guy gets me.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2023, 03:08:47 am by jmyrlefuller »
New profile picture in honor of Public Domain Day 2024

Offline Right_in_Virginia

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 80,153
"Fox’s @BritHume says he’s never seen anything like the current Speaker stalemate before: “200 members of the House want a certain candidate and 20 don’t — but the 20 are calling the tune. That’s an interesting way to do business.”  (Video)


https://mobile.twitter.com/TVNewsNow/status/1610805440207818752

Offline roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 44,035
The other 202 Republicans HAVE chosen who they want for Speaker. Why should 19 morons get to override that?

So wait... They're OBLIGED to vote with the majority?
Then why vote at all?

This precise sort of thinking is why I am no longer a Republican.

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,912
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Sorry @Maj. Bill Martin but you are just flat out wrong on this point. Abolishing the income tax and replacing it with a National Retail Sales Tax would not require a constitutional amendment as nowhere does the constitution require an income tax.
If you don't get rid of this:
Quote
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

No way I can approve of an alternate.

Failure to eliminate the 16th Amendment would only guarantee another tax, in addition to the income tax, not the elimination of the income tax.

More to the point, however, a tax on consumption, disregarding essential food, energy, and medical care, seems more the way to go.  With those exceptions, it would be less regressive than just a sales tax, and those who spent the most would pay the most taxes.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36,868
This precise sort of thinking is why I am no longer a Republican.

This sort of thinking is why I am not a Democrat.  I cannot understand for the life of me why there are people here who are so adamantly supporting the GOP Establishment.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-


"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."

-Ayn Rand-

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,723
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
If you don't get rid of this:
No way I can approve of an alternate.

Failure to eliminate the 16th Amendment would only guarantee another tax, in addition to the income tax, not the elimination of the income tax.

More to the point, however, a tax on consumption, disregarding essential food, energy, and medical care, seems more the way to go.  With those exceptions, it would be less regressive than just a sales tax, and those who spent the most would pay the most taxes.

The bill itself addresses both issues @Smokin Joe my question to you is would you rather determine what YOUR essentials are yourself or have some goobernment puke do it for you?
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Offline Maj. Bill Martin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,966
  • Gender: Male
  • I'll make Mincemeat out of 'em"
Sorry @Maj. Bill Martin but you are just flat out wrong on this point. Abolishing the income tax and replacing it with a National Retail Sales Tax would not require a constitutional amendment as nowhere does the constitution require an income tax.

You're right -- I shouldn't have said it that broadly.  I'd just read something about the feds requiring the states to do the administrative end of a proposed national sales tax because the infrastructure already exists, and that would require an Amendment to compel the states to assist.  But a basic sales tax wouldn't.

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,912
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
The bill itself addresses both issues @Smokin Joe my question to you is would you rather determine what YOUR essentials are yourself or have some goobernment puke do it for you?
I'm not saying determine essentials at any level in government, although States do that with sales tax exemptions now, deciding that the calories in a bag of sugar are not taxable, but the ones in some junk food are.
You want your house to be at 60 degrees all summer and live in the Florida keys? Go for it, no tax on it--it's your house. Want to eat caviar at every meal...why not? no tax. Bigger boobs? no tax. Gasoline (motor fuels, including charging vehicles), can be taxed separately with excise taxes as is done with gas and diesel now.

Here's the rub, and its simple, sooner or later, that money will be spent, on some thing taxable. Big house? ya gotta furnish it, and that's taxable.

Where the government determines essentials is in determining pre/rebates of presumed taxes on essentials. Just don't tax it in the first place, and you won't need those folks to hand out the checks (and eliminate a huge window for fraud).

Obviously, I would rather set my thermostat and not have the government tax that energy I use. I live in a place where winter kills in a matter of hours, most of the folks in Government do not.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 44,035
This sort of thinking is why I am not a Democrat.  I cannot understand for the life of me why there are people here who are so adamantly supporting the GOP Establishment.

It seems 'Drain the Swamp' was just a convenient meme.  :whistle:

Offline Maj. Bill Martin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,966
  • Gender: Male
  • I'll make Mincemeat out of 'em"
This sort of thinking is why I am not a Democrat.  I cannot understand for the life of me why there are people here who are so adamantly supporting the GOP Establishment.

I think its pretty straightforward for most of us.  I personally view the election of the Speaker kind of like a regular election.  There is a primary -- the conference vote -- where the identity of the GOP candidate is voted upon.  And then we support that candidate in the general election because we believe he/she is better than the Democrat alternative.

Trump won 45% of the 2016 primary vote, which meant that a majority of GOP primary voters preferred someone else to him.  Despite that, the vast majority of Republicans rallied around him in the general election because of the general consensus that Republican are preferred to Democrats.  Even though for Presidential elections, a candidate who lost in the primary likely could still run in the general election as an independent.  He wasn't my preferred Republican, but I voted for him in the general anyway.

So, I think a lot of people say "there was a vote overwhelmingly in favor of McCarthy, he won, so that should be it."  If small factions within the caucus start making independent demands that their views be given special consideration, that opens it up to every other little faction within the caucus to start making their own demands, and that just isn't workable.

It's Sore/Loserman all over again.

Offline Hoodat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36,868
I think its pretty straightforward for most of us.  I personally view the election of the Speaker kind of like a regular election.  There is a primary -- the conference vote -- where the identity of the GOP candidate is voted upon.  And then we support that candidate in the general election because we believe he/she is better than the Democrat alternative.

If those general election rules were in place, then we would already be swearing in Speaker Jefferies.  But then this isn't that type situation at all, thank G-d.  The Nov conference vote wasn't a primary.  And the highest vote getter doesn't win any of the general election votes so far.
If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power.

-Dwight Eisenhower-


"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."

-Ayn Rand-

Offline Right_in_Virginia

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 80,153
But then this isn't that type situation at all, thank G-d.  The Nov conference vote wasn't a primary.  And the highest vote getter doesn't win any of the general election votes so far.

Try thinking of it this way:

Congress is the business of government. The November conference was the Board of Directors meeting to choose the man or woman to be the Republican Corporation's CEO candidate to be voted on by the general shareholders.  The Board's vote is legally binding.

If you're unhappy with the outcome,  find a way to work with it or resign and find another Board.



« Last Edit: January 05, 2023, 07:04:12 am by Right_in_Virginia »

Offline roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 44,035
Try thinking of it this way:

Congress is the business of government. The November conference was the Board of Directors meeting to choose the man or woman to be the Republican Corporation's CEO candidate to be voted on by the general shareholders.  The Board's vote is legally binding.

If you're unhappy with the outcome,  find a way to work with it or resign and find another Board.

But the conference is not legally binding... And obviously whatever happened there got shoved down their throats, or something since then pissed em off.

As to resigning - HELL NO! They have a responsibility to the folks that elected them, and to Conservatives - which they are doing.

So IT IS more of a primary. They have more responsibility to their own consciences than they do the party - That is always the case - And beyond that, their will bent toward those who elected them - To serve those folks within the parameters their respective consciences will allow... Those things come BEFORE any allegiance toward party, AND OUGHT TO.

 

Offline Kamaji

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58,084
If you don't get rid of this:
No way I can approve of an alternate.

Failure to eliminate the 16th Amendment would only guarantee another tax, in addition to the income tax, not the elimination of the income tax.

More to the point, however, a tax on consumption, disregarding essential food, energy, and medical care, seems more the way to go.  With those exceptions, it would be less regressive than just a sales tax, and those who spent the most would pay the most taxes.

If one simply eliminates the 16th Amendment, the only thing one does is to prohibit income taxation of capital gains and rents.  Income tax on wages would continue as before.  Why?  Read the 1895 Income Tax Cases carefully.