• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:#690]McCarthy falls short in first vote for House speaker

Chomsky said:
After two hours of Fox, including multiple GOP House critters appearing, I swear I still don't know what the complaints are against McCarthy.

No one seems to be able to articulate the situation.
Click to expand...
The 19 want special powers and control over lawsuits and commitees.

That's seems to be about it
 
Chomsky said:
Jeffries currently is the top vote getter! He's at 212. If this was plurality or ranked choice voting, he'd be Speaker!
Click to expand...
One news commentator said that one possibility is for both House Republicans and Democrats to vote for a choice based on plurality, which would then force the renegade Republicans to vote for McCarthy or allow Jeffries to become Speaker.
 
:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:


Image
 
Anthony60 said:
Yeah, sure. Okay.
Click to expand...

Dude. Sit still. Listen. Brace yourself.

It never, ever took Democrats three rounds of voting to elect Nancy Pelosi as speaker. It didn't take three rounds of voting to nominate Hakim Jeffries as the heir apparent. We ain't the ones having the bro-down. That's y'all.
 
RobertU said:
One news commentator said that one possibility is for both House Republicans and Democrats to vote for a choice based on plurality, which would then force the renegade Republicans to vote for McCarthy or allow Jeffries to become Speaker.
Click to expand...

Wow. That's a helluva' idea!

But, no way I see Repubs going for that. Besides, who would represent them (unanimously) in an agreement of this sort?
 
multivita-man said:
Dude. Sit still. Listen. Brace yourself.

It never, ever took Democrats three rounds of voting to elect Nancy Pelosi as speaker. It didn't take three rounds of voting to nominate Hakim Jeffries as the heir apparent. We ain't the ones having the bro-down. That's y'all.
Click to expand...

They are quite hot under the collar.

1672812428059.webp
 
1672812025339.png

Linc said:
Fun times with Boebert openly trashing Marjorie for her Jewish Space Lasers.
Click to expand...

THE GOOD NEWS - Marjorie Taylor Greene accused Jewish Space Lasers of being responsible for starting California's catastrophic forest fires

THE BAD NEWS - Taylor Greene's comments were made while addressing a "WHITE SUPREMACIST" conference

Compared to the 20 members of "The Freedom Caucus" holding the other 202 Republicans in the House as political hostages, both Taylor Greene and George Santos have been on their best behaviour - they are both McCarthy supporters and managed to maintain a relatively low profile on the 1st day of the 118th Congress!

Given that it was only Tuesday, it would be unrealistic not to expect Taylor Greene and/or George Santos to go a whole week without becoming embroiled in yet another controversy - they represent "THE REPUBLICAN GIFT THAT KEEPS ON GIVING!"
 
Last edited:
BlueTex said:
LOL... The record is two months and 133 votes before a speaker was named..

Click to expand...

And how long ago was that? Was it exactly 100 or 175 years ago ? (I am actually asking: I know that the last time this happend was 1923 and the time before that was sometime around 1850. I do not know on which of those occations it took 2 month)
 
To be honest, I don't agree with the Democrats that this is bad for democracy. I think it might be a good thing for democracy in the US, we'll see.
 
Juks said:
And how long ago was that? Was it exactly 100 or 175 years ago ? (I am actually asking: I know that the last time this happend was 1923 and the time before that was sometime around 1850. I do not know on which of those occations it took 2 month)
Click to expand...
Okay, I can answer myself. 1923 it took 9 polls and it was 1850 that it took 2 month.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom