Next Speaker of the House? (15 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    MT15

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Mar 13, 2019
    Messages
    24,160
    Reaction score
    35,574
    Location
    Midwest
    Offline
    There’s a lot of doubt that Kevin McCarthy will be able to get enough votes to become Speaker. It certainly won’t happen on the first ballot. Already Boboert and MTG are publicly at odds over it.

    Maybe this is worth it’s own thread to watch. One person mentioned is Scalise.

     
    Any legislation passed under a Democrat lead house would still be a compromise. Democrats don't magically have enough votes without a small group of Republicans getting on board. It's hard to see your logic tbh.

    Realistically, we are talking about simply keeping the lights on, and possibly passing aid packages. That's as much 'compromise" as I would hope for.
    I don't understand what you're confused about. I didn't say that Democrats would lead the House. I've been saying the opposite. Democrats certainly don't have enough votes on their own. I also didn't say, nor implied, that a Republican moderate led House wouldn't need Democratic support to pass legislation, unless they catered to their extremes. My belief is that a moderate Republican led House would find it hard to get legislation to draw 111 Republicans (1/2 of their coalition) to meet the Hastert Rule, but it could be done, however that that legislation would have to also draw up to 106 Democrats, depending on how many Republicans they get. It would have to be moderate legislation to draw Democrats. That's a tall order, so not much would pass, but I think there could be SOME bi-partisan legislation. I don't expect any from this congress led by Johnson.
     
    I don't understand what you're confused about. I didn't say that Democrats would lead the House. I've been saying the opposite. Democrats certainly don't have enough votes on their own. I also didn't say, nor implied, that a Republican moderate led House wouldn't need Democratic support to pass legislation, unless they catered to their extremes. My belief is that a moderate Republican led House would find it hard to get legislation to draw 111 Republicans (1/2 of their coalition) to meet the Hastert Rule, but it could be done, however that that legislation would have to also draw up to 106 Democrats, depending on how many Republicans they get. It would have to be moderate legislation to draw Democrats. That's a tall order, so not much would pass, but I think there could be SOME bi-partisan legislation. I don't expect any from this congress led by Johnson.

    My point is there isn't much daylight between a Democrat lead house that needs Republican votes, and a Republican lead house that needs some democrat votes. Democrats have a lot to lose if they vote for a Republican to control the house, because they can pass anything they want as the majority. It doesn't matter what they promise to get power. Democrats on the other hand will always need to compromise to pass any legislation through the house. Do you get it?

    It's why your entire premise doesn't make sense. It's honestly why you are wrong. Democrats would be huge dumb dumbs to ever vote for a Republican for speaker. I don't care what fairytales they whisper in the dark.
     
    My point is there isn't much daylight between a Democrat lead house that needs Republican votes, and a Republican lead house that needs some democrat votes. Democrats have a lot to lose if they vote for a Republican to control the house, because they can pass anything they want as the majority. It doesn't matter what they promise to get power. Democrats on the other hand will always need to compromise to pass any legislation through the house. Do you get it?

    It's why your entire premise doesn't make sense. It's honestly why you are wrong. Democrats would be huge dumb dumbs to ever vote for a Republican for speaker. I don't care what fairytales they whisper in the dark.
    There is a huge difference between a far right vs a moderate Republican. Jordan wouldn’t have and Johnson probably will not allow Democrats to get any of their interests in legislation. They will pass everything on a party line.

    Democrats had zero chance of getting a Democratic speaker. The only chance they had of getting legislation that would address some of their interests was with a moderate Republican speaker. Democrats’ legislation won’t sniff a vote on the floor, and they will be blackmailed, and I think that’s dumb.

    It’s over now, unless the speaker gets vacated again, but as long as Johnson doesn’t work with Democrats, Gates and his ilk won’t press to vacate.
     
    Before entering elected office, Mike Johnson, the new Republican speaker of the US House, praised “18th-century values” and told an audience that Americans should live by them when it came to morality and religion.

    In video footage of a forum hosted in 2013 by Louisiana Right to Life, an anti-abortion group, Johnson, a devout Baptist and then an attorney for rightwing groups and causes, is asked about the “condition of conscience” in Europe and Canada regarding abortion policy.

    Saying he has just given “a seminar … to a bunch of high school kids in Shreveport”, Johnson quotes George Washington and John Adams, saying the first two presidents and other founders “told us that if we didn’t maintain those 18th-century values, that the republic would not stand, and this is the condition we find ourselves in today”.…..

     
    Before entering elected office, Mike Johnson, the new Republican speaker of the US House, praised “18th-century values” and told an audience that Americans should live by them when it came to morality and religion.

    In video footage of a forum hosted in 2013 by Louisiana Right to Life, an anti-abortion group, Johnson, a devout Baptist and then an attorney for rightwing groups and causes, is asked about the “condition of conscience” in Europe and Canada regarding abortion policy.

    Saying he has just given “a seminar … to a bunch of high school kids in Shreveport”, Johnson quotes George Washington and John Adams, saying the first two presidents and other founders “told us that if we didn’t maintain those 18th-century values, that the republic would not stand, and this is the condition we find ourselves in today”.…..



    well he can go @##$ himself- im not wearing a top hat nor knickers.
     
    Before entering elected office, Mike Johnson, the new Republican speaker of the US House, praised “18th-century values” and told an audience that Americans should live by them when it came to morality and religion.

    In video footage of a forum hosted in 2013 by Louisiana Right to Life, an anti-abortion group, Johnson, a devout Baptist and then an attorney for rightwing groups and causes, is asked about the “condition of conscience” in Europe and Canada regarding abortion policy.

    Saying he has just given “a seminar … to a bunch of high school kids in Shreveport”, Johnson quotes George Washington and John Adams, saying the first two presidents and other founders “told us that if we didn’t maintain those 18th-century values, that the republic would not stand, and this is the condition we find ourselves in today”.…..


    18th century values??? 😂😂😂

    Because life has ever worked that way. These people are so forking backwards.
     
    People in the 18th century didn't live by 18th-century values. It's a myth, just like the myth of morally righteous small-town America.

    Exactly - it’s pure bullshirt. And the only people that say it are white Christian men (go figure), because everyone else intuitively knows that not only is it bullshirt, it was a horrible time for everyone else.

    It’s totally phony. And they say it with such righteousness but it’s an unintelligent conclusion. They might as well just say “I’m not actually that bright and I say stupid things because I’m not intellectually capable enough to realize that this is bullshirt.”
     
    Exactly - it’s pure bullshirt. And the only people that say it are white Christian men (go figure), because everyone else intuitively knows that not only is it bullshirt, it was a horrible time for everyone else.

    It’s totally phony. And they say it with such righteousness but it’s an unintelligent conclusion. They might as well just say “I’m not actually that bright and I say stupid things because I’m not intellectually capable enough to realize that this is bullshirt.”
    Well, when you're fed bs all your life, that is what you get.
     
    After questions bubbled up around why the new House Speaker Mike Johnson’s “adopted” Black son has been largely absent from his public life, the Louisiana Republican offered an explanation.

    Since winning the speakership, Rep Johnson’s personal life has come into the spotlight, as some have noticed that his adopted son Michael was not pictured in a family portrait posted on the Republican’s official site.

    The congressman’s bio also doesn’t mention him: “Mike and his wife Kelly, a former school teacher from Webster Parish and now a Licensed Pastoral Counselor, have been married since 1999 and have four children, Hannah, Abigail, Jack and Will.”

    Mr Johnson, who is white, has publicly described his relationship with Michael, who is Black, in the context of race.

    “I have walked with him through discrimination that he has had to endure over the years and the hurdles he sometimes faced,” he said in 2019 while testifying against reparations for slavery. “I know all this because I was with him.” He added that his son also opposed reparations because it strayed from an “important tradition of self-reliance.”

    After the death of George Floyd, the Louisiana congressman once again mentioned Michael, this time in order to compare his experience to that of his biological son, Jack. He said during a 2020 PBS interview: “Michael being a Black American and Jack being white Caucasian. They have different challenges. My son Jack has an easier path. He just does.”

    He has even compared his and his wife’s decision to take “custody” of Michael decades ago to “The Blind Side.” In the same interview, he asked the host: ‘Have you seen the story ‘The Blind Side’? That was our story, except my Michael was not an NFL prospect…we took him in as our own.”

    Now, under intense scrutiny in his new gig, he was forced to address the absence of his son, who he previously talked about so frequently.……

     
    After questions bubbled up around why the new House Speaker Mike Johnson’s “adopted” Black son has been largely absent from his public life, the Louisiana Republican offered an explanation.

    Since winning the speakership, Rep Johnson’s personal life has come into the spotlight, as some have noticed that his adopted son Michael was not pictured in a family portrait posted on the Republican’s official site.

    The congressman’s bio also doesn’t mention him: “Mike and his wife Kelly, a former school teacher from Webster Parish and now a Licensed Pastoral Counselor, have been married since 1999 and have four children, Hannah, Abigail, Jack and Will.”

    Mr Johnson, who is white, has publicly described his relationship with Michael, who is Black, in the context of race.

    “I have walked with him through discrimination that he has had to endure over the years and the hurdles he sometimes faced,” he said in 2019 while testifying against reparations for slavery. “I know all this because I was with him.” He added that his son also opposed reparations because it strayed from an “important tradition of self-reliance.”

    After the death of George Floyd, the Louisiana congressman once again mentioned Michael, this time in order to compare his experience to that of his biological son, Jack. He said during a 2020 PBS interview: “Michael being a Black American and Jack being white Caucasian. They have different challenges. My son Jack has an easier path. He just does.”

    He has even compared his and his wife’s decision to take “custody” of Michael decades ago to “The Blind Side.” In the same interview, he asked the host: ‘Have you seen the story ‘The Blind Side’? That was our story, except my Michael was not an NFL prospect…we took him in as our own.”

    Now, under intense scrutiny in his new gig, he was forced to address the absence of his son, who he previously talked about so frequently.……

    I saw where the dates do not add up, like, at all. That he “adopted” this 14 year old boy when he was 25, a full two years before he got married. I have not verified this myself but am repeating what I have seen posted many times. He wouldn’t have been allowed to adopt a teen as a single man, according to social workers, so it’s unclear what sort of arrangement this was, how it came about, or really anything at all about this. It just seems weird right now. I would hope there could be more clarity about this, if indeed he isn’t telling the truth about when this child was “adopted”.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom