Oh ho! Wait til Fox News finds out about his tan suit! Oh man, they’re gonna drag him for weeks about that! Ha ha!
Ahh Fox News sure does hate tan suits. And news.
I bet he likes dijon mustard too…
God it’s so hard to believe that the same people who got outraged at Obama for having uppity fancy dijon mustard instead of honest earnest working class yellow mustard, would also go on to worship the man who shits in a golden toilet.
It was never about mustard or suits but I think we all know that.
Wow. I knew the suit was a thing for these people, but I had no idea they got all run up over mustard.
that is one hideously tailored suit. Like JC Pennies ‘mail out to adjust off the rack suits’ look better.
he’d look more professional if he was wearing fetterman’s hoodie…
He did just come out of a 3.5 hour screamfest, so a little rumpling is expected.
But it’s the wrong size, the tie is hideous. Jim Jordan won the clothes battle today for sure.
Only if your skin is darker than the suit
It still baffles me that out of
535435 house members, 8 of them are running the showPut slightly differently. Eight members of the house can cause total gridlock because the other 427 can’t even countenance taking a single step of compromise - and not even compromise on an actual law - compromise on the person who presides over the process.
The problem isn’t really the eight. The problem is that the process has gotten so fucked we can no longer work around a 1.8% nut job rate.
Edit: math
While you are kind of correct, grouping the democrats in as part of the group that won’t compromise is not fair. They’ve come to the table with demands for compromise, and they didn’t start this problem so it’s not theirs to clean up. It’s the right and moderate right that aren’t compromising.
Fault and fairness are irrelevant; they’ve never had anything to do with how government functions and damn sure don’t look to start mattering any time soon. A two party system this polarized simply will. not. work.
Which is exactly why it’s important not to bail the republicans out of their self imposed ongoing schism. They need to be broken up and that can’t happen unless they repeatedly fail to caucus together on even simple procedural tasks like electing a speaker. This is an ideal problem brought upon themselves to show they are already not a single unified party. Just a loose agglomeration of shit stirrers. Two bad kids in their granddad’s trench coat.
I certainly wouldn’t say that bailing them out is the best choice, either from a moral or a practical point of view. My point was merely that the eight nutters here are not the real problem. They are merely symptom of much more grave and perhaps systemic threats to the governmental system.
You’re talking out of both sides of your ass.
Democrats are open to compromise.
They have indicated that they are willing to support empowering McHenry until January.
Democrats are also willing to support other Republicans as Speaker, provided Republicans offer something in return.
But they aren’t willing to support election deniers (like Jordan), and they won’t support people who previously reneged on deals with Democrats (like McCarthy).
Not that it matters, because Republicans refuse to support anyone who needs Democratic support to become Speaker.
But they aren’t willing to support election deniers (like Jordan),
I just want to say that while people who refuse to acknowledge that Biden won the 2020 election should be rightfully called election deniers, Jordan’s role is so much more involved: he actively attempted to get the election decertified and throw the vote to Trump.
That makes him at least one of the figureheads of an attempted coup d’etat, someone who tried to end democracy in America in order to install an unelected leader in the White House.
If he had succeeded, America today would no longer be a democracy, a nation where the electorate chooses its representatives.
If it was up to Jim Jordan, we would now live in a dictatorship, with Trump as the unelected ruler who would no longer be beholden to the will of the people or the rule of law.
this shit show is made by republicans, continued by republicans and is entirely republicans fucking it up. Considering McCarthy failed to abide deals he had already made, why should democrats trust him to honor a second deal?
if republicans were even nominally bipartisan- like, you know, any reasonable body would be if the majority was led by exactly 4 votes- we wouldn’t be in this mess.
If the number of seats in the House had not been frozen a century ago, this would not be a problem as it would provide representation proportional to population (as outlined in the US Constitution), rather than artificially amplifying the voices of low-population states. As it stands, citizens in Wyoming (pop. ~577k, 1 rep) have any twice as much representation per capita than those of Delaware (pop ~1.003M, 1 rep), while both have a single Representative. Compared to California (pop. ~39.24M, 52 reps), which has a ratio of 1 rep:~755k people.
There is, to be said, an issue of maintaining the level of proportionality originally intended (1 rep : 30k people). This would require over 11k representatives today. However, using the “Wyoming Rule”, where the number of seats is proportional to that required to provide one Representative per population of the least populace state (currently Wyoming), the number is only about 575. That’s much more manageable and would do a better job of providing equal representation and making gerrymandering harder.
It’s 435 in the house and 100 in the Senate.
You’re right. To be honest the website FiveThirtyEight always fucks me up on that number for some reason
Because McCarthy gave away guaranteed power to avoid compromise with any Democrat.
McCarthy made the deal that allowed the 8 to oust him.
In an ideal world, the speaker is supposed to be the most centrist person, but when you have parties of hardliners and refusal to make comcessions, you get the shit thats happening right now.
I don’t get Gaetz’s constitutional argument. The Constitution only has this to say about the Speaker role:
The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and Officers
It hardly seems like a “desecration” to let the House choose a temporary speaker.
I know, I know, it’s shocking that Gaetz is not a serious person.
His comments are probably based more on the traditions and history of the House rather than any written law, House rule, or even Article of the Constitution
Including voting for Jeffries?
Own the libs by giving Jeffries the one job that no sane Republican wants
Its so hard to parody republicans when the reality is them using light beer in their rhetoric of federal government operations
Gaetz is a fucking drunk that had his daddy make his DUI problems go away. I can’t say I’m surprised he relates everything to beer.
That’s was just weird to read
C’Mon. we all know That Kavanaugh likes a good light beer…
Pretty much
And the chaos continues…
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz ® said he will do “everything possible” to prevent the empowering of Speaker Pro Tempore Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.).
Gaetz was one of the eight Republicans who sided with House Democrats to remove former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif) from his role earlier this month.
Now, as the House has gone weeks without a Speaker amid multiple crises like the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict and a looming government shutdown, some in the lower chamber have considered a resolution to give McHenry more power.
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who recently faced two failed attempts to gain the gavel this week, is also reportedly planning to back a resolution to empower McHenry.
“I will not sit back and watch a complete betrayal of the GOP base with this ‘plan’ that’s being discussed,” Boebert wrote on X.
“I ran because I was sick and tired of politicians coming up here and cutting deals and releasing ‘holier than thou’ statements about why we just had to accept it.”
The original article contains 281 words, the summary contains 165 words. Saved 41%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
