And it’s not like they have any territories to grant statehood to that lean Republican, do they? They do have that whole State of Jefferson thing, tho. LOL
If the Democrats were going to offer this, it should be to remove the debt ceiling entirely. Of all the stupid things Congress does, voting to approve a budget and then having to vote to pay for the things they voted to buy is perhaps the stupidest.
Which as mentioned by Bootb may be a self-fulfilling fallacy when it comes to PR. Heck, since 2005, 2 out of the last 3 congressional delegates (including the incumbent), adding up to 6 out of 10 congressional terms, have caucused Republican and pro-statehood. But if the national party keep saying they don’t want our votes unless and until we’re solid MAGA red Anglophones, well…
Anyway, back to the story, 12 noon today, next showtime!
After all, “possession is nine tenths of the law.” That was either in the Talmud or maybe a Woody Woodpecker cartoon. Not sure.
So, if there is no speaker of the house for the next two years, can bills still be brought to the floor if enough Republicans join with Democrats to support it?
This morning, King-Maker Trump came out in full support of Kevs:
This will be an interesting test of his influence.
Now, some on Twitter are speculating that this entire shit show was/is a con job, designed so that Donnie can step in and force everyone into alignment. I don’t subscribe to this theory, but it is floating out there this 8:44 in the morning.
If the 20 remains 20, or barely reduces, Trump is even more marginalized. If they accede to his demands, they are even more fucked in 2024.
Good times!
Members can’t even be sworn in until a Speaker is elected. Right now there are no sitting members of Congress.
… then who is voting for Speaker? 
(Don’t worry about answering it, this is just another way the Constitution is broken.)
Okay… say Kev caves in to the Freedom Caucus’ demands, get elected speaker and down the road a couple months they decide to vote him out. Then what? Are they in the same pickle again and can’t elect a new Speaker? That would be pretty short sighted.
I suppose they could use those couple months to groom a new potential Speaker.
My wife and I got into a whole discussion about this last night after she saw a tweet from Adam Kinzinger asking “Am I still a member of Congress?” So basically, they’re elected but can’t do anything other than vote for leadership, then they get sworn in and start with committee assignments and get down to business. Doesn’t make a lot of sense, but then again most times picking a leader isn’t such an ordeal.
He’s re-learning the lesson that Chamberlain had to learn in the 1930s. Give Hitler everything he wants, and he’ll just want more.
The point is to have a speaker with a gun at their head driving only where the few demand and otherwise doing nothing.
So, it seems to be to the advantage of those who don’t want a functional government to continue to balk at any compromise.
Then they get to go back to their constituents and tell them that they broke the government, which is what they were sent there to do.
Sure, it means no investigations into Hunter’s laptop, but they actually know that that won’t go anywhere, and could even backfire once it is shown what little “evidence” they actually have. Better to just go on Fox and make insinuations than to actually try to prove them in a formal setting.
Summary
And a more recent and relevant lesson that Obama learned in the 2010s. Give the Republicans everything they want, and they’ll just want more.
Their own playbook is biting them in the face.
Yeah, I suppose that’s the case. How long can that last?
very off-topic post {WE?}
It’s also the lesson to be learned from illegal aliens crossing the border, one supposes.
That’s an interesting question. If a motion to vacate the chair carries, then the House would have no Speaker. But, unlike now, at that point members would be sworn in, committees would be appointed, the rules adopted, etc. And most importantly, there would be a Speaker pro tem in place who would be able to preside over the House.
Problematic and off-topic post hidden {WE?}
No, not really. Or at all, in fact.
I’m not sure how you equate individuals fleeing violence and poverty with rich white men seeking power, but honestly, this probably isn’t the thread to get into whatever crazy woo conspiracy theory that would make you utter such a ridiculous remark.
Please open a thread explaining exactly what it is that you mean here, and I’ll be happy to give my feedback on it there.
Modnote: Enough of this hijacking of the thread. You’re both causing trouble. k9bfriender your response is bordering on insulting the poster for sure.
Hidden to avoid hijacking the thread.
I’m just going to hide all of these posts.