Jaxom 1974 Posted May 27 Share Posted May 27 (edited) 1 hour ago, Zorral said: Well, the governor of ND has thrown his hat into the ring for the nomination. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/05/26/republican-presidential-primary-burgum-north-dakota/ Totally against everything that matters to me. And yet, people used to inquire why I was so HOT to get the hell out of the hell that is North Dakota than and now. Who now? Do people in North Dakota even know who their Governor is? Do Republican voters even know there is a North Dakota? Talk about starting from behind the eight ball... Edited May 27 by Jaxom 1974 Prince of the North and Jace, Extat 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 2 hours ago, Zorral said: TX votes to impeach Paxton - at least to hold a trial. But in the meantime he's out of office. https://apnews.com/article/texas-attorney-general-paxton-impeachment-d0fa9114868adca63d55a21a53765c45 I’m already seeing people screaming on Twitter that the Texas Republican Party has been infiltrated by “Democrats”… I sincerely hope that the Trumpanistas split and form their own party. That will allow Democrats to gain control in many States while the Rump Republican Party goes on a “we didn’t mean all the Stupid crap we did” tour… Jace, Extat 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted May 28 Author Share Posted May 28 22 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: I sincerely hope that the Trumpanistas split and form their own party. That will allow Democrats to gain control in many States while the Rump Republican Party goes on a “we didn’t mean all the Stupid crap we did” tour… ....And next flowers will be everywhere and everything will taste like candy and we will all live in peace and prosperity like the Coke commercial that concluded Mad Men. Lord of Oop North, Ser Scot A Ellison, Gaston de Foix and 3 others 1 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 1 hour ago, Jaxom 1974 said: Do Republican voters even know there is a North Dakota? Isn't that part of Canada? Sounds cold. /s Prince of the North and Fragile Bird 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted May 28 Author Share Posted May 28 So, a debt ceiling deal has been reached...for now. Pretty much what was already reported, but this... Quote The agreement includes new policy changes to the TANF and SNAP programs, including time limits on people up to age 54, according to a source familiar with the negotiations who was not authorized to share details publicly. The deal would include new work requirements in TANF for cash assistance recipients but a modified version of the House-passed bill. The changes are likely to be unpopular with House Democrats. But it imposes no new work requirements for Medicaid, a win for the White House. This is absolutely not what FDR imagined when he passed welfare nearly a century ago. It's quite the shame..but at the same time not surprising a guy like Joe Biden would give it up. Oh well. Anywho, now we got the 72-hour window ON TOP of all the Senate fuck ups before voting. It's gonna be a very annoying week. But, this IS getting pretty damn close. Kalnak the Magnificent, Gaston de Foix and Jace, Extat 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varysblackfyre321 Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeor Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 9 hours ago, DMC said: Anywho, now we got the 72-hour window ON TOP of all the Senate fuck ups before voting. It's gonna be a very annoying week. But, this IS getting pretty damn close. What are the chances of this actually passing, though? There will be lots of Republican defections, but I guess Dems will have to do the heavy lifting. What was the reason Dems didn't get rid of the debt ceiling when they had control of the White House and Congress again...? I don't know why you wouldn't just have gotten rid of it in that lame duck session. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maarsen Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 10 hours ago, LongRider said: Isn't that part of Canada? Sounds cold. /s The really thick headed part of Canada is north of Montana. North of North Dakota is Winnipeg, known for being even colder and Neil Young and the Guess Who. Prince of the North 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 I think you meant Manitoba. Winnipeg is pretty much the only city I could name from that province, or is it really directly at the border. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted May 28 Author Share Posted May 28 1 hour ago, Jeor said: What are the chances of this actually passing, though? I dunno, guess I'd put it at about 70/30. Prolly higher, but I suppose the cynicism of this board is wearing on me. As I intimated, the far-right is going to whine and cry for a week, but that shouldn't prevent it from passing. Very rarely does a bill agreed upon by the President and the Speaker of two different parties fail to pass. At least the House, that is, and the Senate ain't the problem (albeit Mike Lee and others will make it arduous). Two closest counterexamples of that I can think of would be the 2007 immigration reform and the first TARP bill. The latter, of course, was rather immediately resolved. So the extreme right only has one example this century of killing such a bill to hang their hat on. As for why the Dems didn't get rid of the debt ceiling during the lame duck, see above. I'll take the Respect for Marriage Act, ECA Reform, and the budget that they are basing the spending freeze on in this deal over a misguided effort to try and do that. All day every day. The interesting thing will indeed be whether McCarthy can get a majority of his conference to vote for it. I wouldn't be surprised if he can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeor Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 21 minutes ago, DMC said: The interesting thing will indeed be whether McCarthy can get a majority of his conference to vote for it. I wouldn't be surprised if he can't. In theory he's supposed to if he's going to bring it to the floor (the vaunted Hastert Rule). But I wouldn't be surprised if he circumvents it given current circumstances. Regardless of how it comes to the floor, if it ends up passing I'm sure McCarthy will face a motion to vacate the Speakership, which will mean breaking out the popcorn. There will be plenty of Republican House members who will be unimpressed with McCarthy's negotiating (not that any of the hard right have ever had to actually be pragmatic themselves). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted May 28 Author Share Posted May 28 1 minute ago, Jeor said: In theory he's supposed to if he's going to bring it to the floor (the vaunted Hastert Rule). But I wouldn't be surprised if he circumvents it given current circumstances. Sure. The Hastert Rule isn't an actual rule and has been violated multiple times by multiple Speakers. As for whether this will lead to a no-confidence vote on McCarthy - no question. It most certainly will. Whether he can gain a majority of the majority on this bill will be a good indication on whether or not he will survive such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ormond Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 13 hours ago, Jaxom 1974 said: Who now? Do people in North Dakota even know who their Governor is? Do Republican voters even know there is a North Dakota? Talk about starting from behind the eight ball... Your third question is relevant, but I wouldn't be surprised if people are more likely to know who their governor is in states with very small populations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 It's a question of whether the bill can even get to the floor though. I believe there are enough HFC members on the rules committee to block it, unless the Dems there vote for it. And if their votes become necessary they may demand negotiations to make the bill more palatable to the House Dems. Which there isn't really time for. DMC 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeor Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 30 minutes ago, DMC said: Sure. The Hastert Rule isn't an actual rule and has been violated multiple times by multiple Speakers. Yes, hence my use of the "vaunted" adjective. It would be amusing if the House Republicans have the votes to roll McCarthy but don't have the votes to decide on another Speaker again, but I doubt that will happen in practice. Given the farce it was the first time, the majority of the caucus wouldn't vote him out unless they knew for sure who his replacement was going to be e.g. Scalise. Jace, Extat 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 2 hours ago, maarsen said: The really thick headed part of Canada is north of Montana. North of North Dakota is Winnipeg, known for being even colder and Neil Young and the Guess Who. Who? maarsen and Gaston de Foix 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted May 28 Author Share Posted May 28 6 minutes ago, Jeor said: It would be amusing if the House Republicans have the votes to roll McCarthy but don't have the votes to decide on another Speaker again, but I doubt that will happen in practice. Given the farce it was the first time, the majority of the caucus wouldn't vote him out unless they knew for sure who his replacement was going to be e.g. Scalise. Indeed. The fact even the most cantankerous haven't floated a replacement yet is probably a good sign he'll survive. If they could find a suitable replacement, he wouldn't be there in the first place. I agree Scalise is an intuitive alternative option, but for whatever reason that doesn't seem to be in the cards. Jace, Extat 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted May 28 Author Share Posted May 28 50 minutes ago, Fez said: It's a question of whether the bill can even get to the floor though. I believe there are enough HFC members on the rules committee to block it, unless the Dems there vote for it. And if their votes become necessary they may demand negotiations to make the bill more palatable to the House Dems. Which there isn't really time for. LOL. I imagine Norman and Roy will vote against it for position taking. Maybe Massie too. But that's about it. If McCarthy didn't think it'd get through the Rules Committee he wouldn't have made the deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted May 28 Share Posted May 28 @DMC @Tywin et al. I’m curious as to why you two think no one has challenged the debt ceiling law under the 14th Amendment? Are they afraid, without an existing default, it would be kicked on standing? Or do both parties just like having this sword of Damocles to dangle over the other side periodically? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted May 28 Author Share Posted May 28 1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Are they afraid, without an existing default, it would be kicked on standing? Yes. It almost certainly would not survive SCOTUS as currently composed. 1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Or do both parties just like having this sword of Damocles to dangle over the other side periodically? It's not both parties. It's the House GOP. Solely. Ser Scot A Ellison 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts