493
Refusing to certify the election results should immediately disqualify one from becoming Speaker. It should disqualify one from holding any elected office.
It won't do either.
I hate Republicans with a fiery passion, but this kind of idea makes me think that if members of Congress aren't free to choose not to certify an election without negative consequences, there really shouldn't be a certification process at all. It has about as much meaning as Putin getting reelected with 120% of the vote.
There shouldn't be imo, it's entirely procedural by that point
It's much more likely that 200 congress people attempt to pull a soft coup and overthrow the government (as many of them did in backing Donald Trump) than it is for the thousands of state level election workers and courts to do the same
Welp, there's your two choices ...
Really, if Democrats are going to vote for any Republican, that should be by far one of the most minimal criteria. No one on the far right should be entertained.
The Democrats need to be doing something interesting here, not boring everyone with more and more unanimous votes for Jeffries. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. We should be controlling the issue, not sitting back and passively observing the GOP tripping over their own dicks.
Democrats should nominate astronaut Scott Kelly for speaker in the next election. Can any GOP candidate hold a candle to Kelly?
The election after that, they should nominate a 9/11 first responder. Any GOP congressmen a better choice than any 9/11 firefighter?
There are 66 living Medal of Honor recipients. There's got to be at least one of them capable of performing the role of speaker, and any of them is worth more than the entire GOP caucus put together.
I want to see the GOP caucus unanimously rejecting true American heroes. Men and women who have fought and sacrificed for their country. I want to see them try to justify voting for some Trump sycophant that meets Matt Gaetz's approval when they have a fantastic candidate available.
When they come up for re-election, I want both their primary challenger and their democratic opponent reminding the public that they supported a weasel like Matt Gaetz over an honest-to-god American hero.
The Democrats need to be doing something interesting here, not boring everyone with more and more unanimous votes for Jeffries.
But they won't because he's Pelosi's designated replacement and party leadership doesn't want the public to consider that better alternatives might exist.
Not at all a problem: let Jeffries announce the plan. Spin it however he wants. He's still the minority leader, and if there is a partisan, Democratic majority, he will become the speaker in the next session.
In the meantime, recognizing that the Democrats are able to lead even without a mathematical majority is a major win.
and if there is a partisan, Democratic majority, he will become the speaker in the next session.
So, announce that primaries are meaningless? I mean, progressives have always suspected it, but...
I mean, my progressive congress critter got in by winning an upset primary. There not meaningless, just hard.
You want astronauts and firefighters in charge of a political body? What are you, 5? Do you also want Paw Patrol to handle the security?
You want astronauts and firefighters in charge of a political body?
Yes.
Mercury Astronaut John Glenn served as senator for Ohio from 1974 through 1999.
Apollo 17 Astronaut Harrison Schmitt served as Senator for New Mexico from 1976 to 1982.
Apollo 13 Astronaut Jack Swigert was elected to a congressional seat in 1982, but died before taking office.
Senators Jake Harm and Bill Nelson became astronauts while in office.
And for the most relevant person, Scott Kelly is actually a twin. He and his brother Mark both earned the rank of Captain in the Navy, both became astronauts, and Mark is now serving as Senator for Arizona.
Yes, I want this particular astronaut in charge of the House.
So out of all the astronauts, many of whom actually DO have political experience that might qualify them for the job, you want one who's only RELATED to someone who's qualified? 🤦
It's an actual job that requires specialized ability and knowledge. It's not a ceremonial position that anyone who's good at anything can do.
The speakership does not require any particular ability or knowledge. The important functions of the speakership are delegation and mediation. They can rely on the House Parliamentarian for guidance on the specifically applicable House rules, for example, deferring to their wisdom and judgment where appropriate.
Not that it makes any real difference, but I wonder how many of them are so stupid and/or blinded by ideological bias that they voted that way because they sincerely believed that the election was invalid and how many of them voted that way because they're cowards with no principles or integrity who were trying to suck up to Trump and his army of violent morons.
At this point, that's one of the only things that provides even a hint of interest about an American right-wing politician - wondering if they're an actual delusional psychopath or if they're just LARPing as one to get votes and/or not get death threats.
Again, not that it makes any real difference...
One of the two is now publicly stating they are pro coup.
Which one?
Tom Emmer
Can I get some context
That's good, it splits the election denial vote.
this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2023
493 points (98.2% liked)
politics
19096 readers
3333 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS