On 10/21/2023 10:57 AM, suzeeq wrote:
> On 10/21/2023 7:33 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 16:39:48 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/20/2023 1:48 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Why can't the Dems, the nearly equal minority party, effectively choose
>>>> the Speaker of the House from among Repubs they find somewhat palatable
>>>> and who would garner at least a dozen or so Repub votes?
>>>>
>>>> And, if they can, why don't/haven't they?
>>>>
>>>> (I'm sure the answer is elementary, but I skipped elementary school.)
>>>
>>> Thanks for all the responses.  Let me be clearer about the proposal:
>>>
>>>
>>>     The House Repubs have a slight majority, but can't become unanimous
>>> enough among themselves to elect a Speaker.
>>>
>>>     I would *assume* that, among the 200+ House Repubs, there must be a
>>> *few* whom the Dems consider preferable to the rest.
>>>
>>>     And, among those few Repubs should be one or two who'd receive at
>>> least a dozen or so of their fellow Repubs' votes.
>>>
>>>     Those dozen-plus votes along with 200-plus Dem votes, would suffice
>>> to install a *Repub* Speaker that Dems nevertheless find preferable to
>>> most Repub alternatives.
>>>
>>>
>>> To me, this prospect seems so rational that I question whether it's not
>>> somehow disallowed...
>>>
>>
>> As far as I know it's allowed but the Dems aren't about making sure
>> the government keeps running.
>>
> Really? Seems like it' the R who have that attitude.

It does generally seem that way. For fanciful example, I'd bet AOC
thinks about actual governing more than Lauren Boebert does.

On 10/21/2023 10:57 AM, suzeeq wrote:
> On 10/21/2023 7:34 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 16:13:20 -0700, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/20/2023 1:39 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>> On 10/20/2023 1:48 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Why can't the Dems, the nearly equal minority party, effectively
>>>>> choose the Speaker of the House from among Repubs they find somewhat
>>>>> palatable and who would garner at least a dozen or so Repub votes?
>>>>>
>>>>> And, if they can, why don't/haven't they?
>>>>>
>>>>> (I'm sure the answer is elementary, but I skipped elementary school.)
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for all the responses.  Let me be clearer about the proposal:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      The House Repubs have a slight majority, but can't become
>>>> unanimous
>>>> enough among themselves to elect a Speaker.
>>>>
>>>>      I would *assume* that, among the 200+ House Repubs, there must
>>>> be a
>>>> *few* whom the Dems consider preferable to the rest.
>>>>
>>>>      And, among those few Repubs should be one or two who'd receive at
>>>> least a dozen or so of their fellow Repubs' votes.
>>>>
>>>>      Those dozen-plus votes along with 200-plus Dem votes, would
>>>> suffice
>>>> to install a *Repub* Speaker that Dems nevertheless find preferable to
>>>> most Repub alternatives.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To me, this prospect seems so rational that I question whether it's not
>>>> somehow disallowed...
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I think the Dems have no intention of voting for a Repub for speaker.
>>> Not necessarily because they're R, but because they're all incompetent.
>>
>> Yeah that it's it...
>>
>> <eyeroll>
>>
>>>
>>> There's 221 R representatives, there needs to be 217 votes to be
>>> elected. The Rs don't need Ds to get it done. See reference to
>>> incompetency above.
>>
>> The dems caused the issue by voting as a block to overthrow the
>> speaker (only 8 Republicans voted that way).  It is THEIR duty to help
>> fix the problem they created.
>>
> No, it's the Rs duty to elect a speaker.

Actually, I think 'Nobody' may have a point here. The Dems' concerted
effort seems to have been less to reject McCarthy than to publicly
expose/exploit Repub disarray. They can't really complain of Congress's
being Speaker-less if it was exactly their objective.

On 10/21/2023 7:57 AM, suzeeq wrote:
> On 10/21/2023 7:33 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 16:39:48 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/20/2023 1:48 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Why can't the Dems, the nearly equal minority party, effectively choose
>>>> the Speaker of the House from among Repubs they find somewhat palatable
>>>> and who would garner at least a dozen or so Repub votes?
>>>>
>>>> And, if they can, why don't/haven't they?
>>>>
>>>> (I'm sure the answer is elementary, but I skipped elementary school.)
>>>
>>> Thanks for all the responses.  Let me be clearer about the proposal:
>>>
>>>
>>>     The House Repubs have a slight majority, but can't become unanimous
>>> enough among themselves to elect a Speaker.
>>>
>>>     I would *assume* that, among the 200+ House Repubs, there must be a
>>> *few* whom the Dems consider preferable to the rest.
>>>
>>>     And, among those few Repubs should be one or two who'd receive at
>>> least a dozen or so of their fellow Repubs' votes.
>>>
>>>     Those dozen-plus votes along with 200-plus Dem votes, would suffice
>>> to install a *Repub* Speaker that Dems nevertheless find preferable to
>>> most Repub alternatives.
>>>
>>>
>>> To me, this prospect seems so rational that I question whether it's not
>>> somehow disallowed...
>>>
>>
>> As far as I know it's allowed but the Dems aren't about making sure
>> the government keeps running.
>>
> Really? Seems like it' the R who have that attitude.

It is the Republicans. How many Democrats in Congress do you know of
that have explicitly stated their goal is to dismantle much of the
Federal Government? Poster NoBody is just participating in the Official
Republican Activity of projecting anything they want that others don't
like onto the people they don't like.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 10/21/2023 9:22 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>> On 10/21/2023 7:34 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 16:13:20 -0700, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>> On 10/20/2023 1:39 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>> On 10/20/2023 1:48 PM, moviePig wrote:
>
>>>>>> Why can't the Dems, the nearly equal minority party, effectively
>>>>>> choose the Speaker of the House from among Repubs they find somewhat
>>>>>> palatable and who would garner at least a dozen or so Repub votes?
>
>>>>>> And, if they can, why don't/haven't they?
>
>>>>>> (I'm sure the answer is elementary, but I skipped elementary school.)
>
>>>>> Thanks for all the responses. Let me be clearer about the proposal:
>
>>>>> The House Repubs have a slight majority, but can't become unanimous
>>>>> enough among themselves to elect a Speaker.
>
>>>>> I would *assume* that, among the 200+ House Repubs, there must be a
>>>>> *few* whom the Dems consider preferable to the rest.
>
>>>>> And, among those few Repubs should be one or two who'd receive at
>>>>> least a dozen or so of their fellow Repubs' votes.
>
>>>>> Those dozen-plus votes along with 200-plus Dem votes, would suffice
>>>>> to install a *Repub* Speaker that Dems nevertheless find preferable to
>>>>> most Repub alternatives.
>
>>>>> To me, this prospect seems so rational that I question whether it's not
>>>>> somehow disallowed...
>
>>>> I think the Dems have no intention of voting for a Repub for speaker.
>>>> Not necessarily because they're R, but because they're all incompetent.
>
>>> Yeah that it's it...
>
>>> <eyeroll>
>
>>>> There's 221 R representatives, there needs to be 217 votes to be
>>>> elected. The Rs don't need Ds to get it done. See reference to
>>>> incompetency above.
>
>>> The dems caused the issue by voting as a block to overthrow the
>>> speaker (only 8 Republicans voted that way). It is THEIR duty to help
>>> fix the problem they created.
>
>> No, it's the Rs duty to elect a speaker.
>
> There are additional issues. McCarthy and McCarthy alone is responsible
> for his own fate. He's the one who agreed to absurd rules that tied his
> own hands in order to be elected Speaker. That he'd lose a no-confidence
> vote was inevitable.
>
> McCarthy deserved to lose. Over the summer, he violated major promises
> that he made to reform budget-making by, essentially, passing
> appropriations bills through the committee process and through regular
> order, the intended way to pass legislation.
>
> McCarthy first tried to save his own ass by proclaiming the start of the
> impeachment inquiry versus Biden that WOULD NOT have had enough votes on
> the House floor to begin. He did it to appease the handful of Republicans
> that wanted revenge for the two Trump impeachments, thinking they'd vote
> for the continuing resolution to keep the government funded. Well, they
> refused to vote for McCarthy's usual budget crap. That's when McCarthy
> passed the CR with adequate support from Democrats.
>
> In theory, yes, a coalition of Republicans and Democrats was possible to
> retain McCarthy. But McCarthy proclaimed that he was not seeking support
> from Democrats.
>
> He wasn't going to get bailed out by Democrats anyway; the impeachment
> inquiry was clearly the last straw for Democrats.
>
> McCarthy and McCarthy alone is responsible for his own fate, certainly
> not House Democrats.
>
> suzeeq, of course a coalition between some in the two parties to elect the
> next Speaker is not outside the realm of possibility. As has been pointed
> out, the Republicans most likely to be willing to join that coalition
> are the ones whose districts Biden either won or barely lost. These same
> Republicans are vulnerable to losing in 2024 if Democrats don't nominate
> Socialists in those districts.

Yes, I know, I made that point in an earlier post.
>
> But for the moment, I think putting enough pressure on Republicans who
> are holding extreme positions to get them to drop those positions so
> that they can elect a Speaker who can be successful for the remainder of
> the Congressional term would be better.
>
Yes.

> Those holding extreme positions demonstrated that the person they
> supported, Jim Jordan, had no ability to win over ordinary Repubicans in
> the House, which should be a huge hint that their politics aren't
> viable. Jordan lost significant support from the first vote to the third
> vote.
>
> The Republicans trying to expand the power of the interim Speaker so
> that some business could get done are on the wrong track. I'm glad that
> didn't happen. The party needs to face up to their inability to govern
> and address that.
>
> Patrick McHenry had taken extreme positions in the past but dropped
> them, unlike Jim Jordan. He's now become Wall Street's darling, which is
> why it would be difficult for him to win over support from Republicans
> elected from rural districts that campaign against Wall Street. McHenry
> knows this, which is why he wasn't campaigning to be the next Speaker.
>

On 10/21/2023 9:27 AM, moviePig wrote:
> On 10/21/2023 10:57 AM, suzeeq wrote:
>> On 10/21/2023 7:34 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 16:13:20 -0700, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/20/2023 1:39 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>> On 10/20/2023 1:48 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why can't the Dems, the nearly equal minority party, effectively
>>>>>> choose the Speaker of the House from among Repubs they find somewhat
>>>>>> palatable and who would garner at least a dozen or so Repub votes?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And, if they can, why don't/haven't they?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (I'm sure the answer is elementary, but I skipped elementary school.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for all the responses.  Let me be clearer about the proposal:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>      The House Repubs have a slight majority, but can't become
>>>>> unanimous
>>>>> enough among themselves to elect a Speaker.
>>>>>
>>>>>      I would *assume* that, among the 200+ House Repubs, there must
>>>>> be a
>>>>> *few* whom the Dems consider preferable to the rest.
>>>>>
>>>>>      And, among those few Repubs should be one or two who'd receive at
>>>>> least a dozen or so of their fellow Repubs' votes.
>>>>>
>>>>>      Those dozen-plus votes along with 200-plus Dem votes, would
>>>>> suffice
>>>>> to install a *Repub* Speaker that Dems nevertheless find preferable to
>>>>> most Repub alternatives.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To me, this prospect seems so rational that I question whether it's
>>>>> not
>>>>> somehow disallowed...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I think the Dems have no intention of voting for a Repub for speaker.
>>>> Not necessarily because they're R, but because they're all incompetent.
>>>
>>> Yeah that it's it...
>>>
>>> <eyeroll>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> There's 221 R representatives, there needs to be 217 votes to be
>>>> elected. The Rs don't need Ds to get it done. See reference to
>>>> incompetency above.
>>>y them
>>> The dems caused the issue by voting as a block to overthrow the
>>> speaker (only 8 Republicans voted that way).  It is THEIR duty to help
>>> fix the problem they created.
>>>
>> No, it's the Rs duty to elect a speaker.
>
> Actually, I think 'Nobody' may have a point here.  The Dems' concerted
> effort seems to have been less to reject McCarthy than to publicly
> expose/exploit Repub disarray.  They can't really complain of Congress's
> being Speaker-less if it was exactly their objective.
>
>
That's somewhat true, but not their overriding aim. Again, the Rs have
enough votes by themselves to elect a speaker without D help. The
extreme right is not able to join with the rest of their caucus to do so.

In article <a_SYM.165666$rbid.99050@fx18.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 10/21/2023 10:57 AM, suzeeq wrote:

> > On 10/21/2023 7:34 AM, NoBody wrote:

> >> The dems caused the issue by voting as a block to overthrow the
> >> speaker (only 8 Republicans voted that way).  It is THEIR duty to help
> >> fix the problem they created.
> >>
> > No, it's the Rs duty to elect a speaker.
>
> Actually, I think 'Nobody' may have a point here. The Dems' concerted
> effort seems to have been less to reject McCarthy than to publicly
> expose/exploit Repub disarray. They can't really complain of Congress's
> being Speaker-less if it was exactly their objective.

^^^This.

In article <QYSYM.165665$rbid.144832@fx18.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 10/21/2023 10:57 AM, suzeeq wrote:
> > On 10/21/2023 7:33 AM, NoBody wrote:

> >> As far as I know it's allowed but the Dems aren't about making sure
> >> the government keeps running.
> >>
> > Really? Seems like it' the R who have that attitude.
>
> It does generally seem that way. For fanciful example, I'd bet AOC
> thinks about actual governing more than Lauren Boebert does.

Well, of course she does. She's a big government socialist who doesn't
think there's any minutia of your life that doesn't call for government
regulation.

It's hardly a surprise that someone like Occasional-Cortex would be
constantly thinking about government compared to a conservative who
would be constantly be thinking how to get government out of the way as
much as possible.

In article <uh12c2$1s7hc$3@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

> It is the Republicans. How many Democrats in Congress do you know of
> that have explicitly stated their goal is to dismantle much of the
> Federal Government?

Much of the federal government *should* be dismantled because it's
unconstitutional.

For example, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives the federal
government its powers and jurisdiction. Nowhere in Article I, Section 8
is the FedGov given the power to regulate education.

Amendment X says that any power not explicitly given to the FedGov
belongs to the state and/or local governments. Which means regulation of
education can't even be an implied federal power; it is exclusively a
matter of state jurisdiction.

The federal Department of Education should be dissolved and dismantled
because it has no constitutional basis to exist.

And that's just one example of many.

On 10/21/2023 2:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <uh12c2$1s7hc$3@dont-email.me>,
> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> It is the Republicans. How many Democrats in Congress do you know of
>> that have explicitly stated their goal is to dismantle much of the
>> Federal Government?
>
> Much of the federal government *should* be dismantled because it's
> unconstitutional.
>
> For example, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives the federal
> government its powers and jurisdiction. Nowhere in Article I, Section 8
> is the FedGov given the power to regulate education.
>
> Amendment X says that any power not explicitly given to the FedGov
> belongs to the state and/or local governments. Which means regulation of
> education can't even be an implied federal power; it is exclusively a
> matter of state jurisdiction.
>
> The federal Department of Education should be dissolved and dismantled
> because it has no constitutional basis to exist.
>
> And that's just one example of many.

Inasmuch as doing away with nationwide education today sounds rather
like a foothold for the Apocalypse, maybe it's time to accept that the
Constitution, though often brilliantly prescient, is NOT a Magic 8-Ball
with an endless supply of oracular "insight".

In article <SQVYM.41774$%WT8.13607@fx12.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 10/21/2023 2:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <uh12c2$1s7hc$3@dont-email.me>,
> > Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
> >
> >> It is the Republicans. How many Democrats in Congress do you know of
> >> that have explicitly stated their goal is to dismantle much of the
> >> Federal Government?
> >
> > Much of the federal government *should* be dismantled because it's
> > unconstitutional.
> >
> > For example, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives the
> > federal government its powers and jurisdiction. Nowhere in
> > Article I, Section 8 is the FedGov given the power to regulate
> > education.
> >
> > Amendment X says that any power not explicitly given to the FedGov
> > belongs to the state and/or local governments. Which means regulation
> > of education can't even be an implied federal power; it is exclusively
> > a matter of state jurisdiction.
> >
> > The federal Department of Education should be dissolved and dismantled
> > because it has no constitutional basis to exist.
> >
> > And that's just one example of many.
>
> Inasmuch as doing away with nationwide education today sounds rather
> like a foothold for the Apocalypse

No one's advocating for the abolishment of education. It's just not a
power of the federal government. It's a matter for states to fund,
implement, and regulate.

> maybe it's time to accept that the Constitution, though often
> brilliantly prescient, is NOT a Magic 8-Ball with an endless supply
> of oracular "insight".

Not even the Founders thought it was a perfect blueprint for society.
That's why they included a process for amending it.

If federal regulation of education is considered necessity by the vast
majority of society, the answer is to amended the Constitution properly,
not for the federal government just to ignore the law and do whatever it
wants.

On 10/21/2023 4:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <SQVYM.41774$%WT8.13607@fx12.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/21/2023 2:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <uh12c2$1s7hc$3@dont-email.me>,
>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is the Republicans. How many Democrats in Congress do you know of
>>>> that have explicitly stated their goal is to dismantle much of the
>>>> Federal Government?
>>>
>>> Much of the federal government *should* be dismantled because it's
>>> unconstitutional.
>>>
>>> For example, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives the
>>> federal government its powers and jurisdiction. Nowhere in
>>> Article I, Section 8 is the FedGov given the power to regulate
>>> education.
>>>
>>> Amendment X says that any power not explicitly given to the FedGov
>>> belongs to the state and/or local governments. Which means regulation
>>> of education can't even be an implied federal power; it is exclusively
>>> a matter of state jurisdiction.
>>>
>>> The federal Department of Education should be dissolved and dismantled
>>> because it has no constitutional basis to exist.
>>>
>>> And that's just one example of many.
>>
>> Inasmuch as doing away with nationwide education today sounds rather
>> like a foothold for the Apocalypse
>
> No one's advocating for the abolishment of education. It's just not a
> power of the federal government. It's a matter for states to fund,
> implement, and regulate.
>
>> maybe it's time to accept that the Constitution, though often
>> brilliantly prescient, is NOT a Magic 8-Ball with an endless supply
>> of oracular "insight".
>
> Not even the Founders thought it was a perfect blueprint for society.
> That's why they included a process for amending it.
>
> If federal regulation of education is considered necessity by the vast
> majority of society, the answer is to amended the Constitution properly,
> not for the federal government just to ignore the law and do whatever it
> wants.

Correct me if I'm right, but I suspect the Founders envisioned an
accessible amendment process far different from today's exercise in cat
herding. (And, would anyone in his right mind *want* our dysfunctional
Congress second-guessing Jefferson and Franklin?)

Meanwhile, I'll pontificate that a basic education is a keystone in any
society that hopes to thrive. So, no, it *shouldn't* be left to 50
individual states ...any more than a state should leave it to a million
individual households.

In article <jUWYM.165752$rbid.35389@fx18.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 10/21/2023 4:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <SQVYM.41774$%WT8.13607@fx12.iad>,
> > moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/21/2023 2:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> In article <uh12c2$1s7hc$3@dont-email.me>,
> >>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> It is the Republicans. How many Democrats in Congress do you know of
> >>>> that have explicitly stated their goal is to dismantle much of the
> >>>> Federal Government?
> >>>
> >>> Much of the federal government *should* be dismantled because it's
> >>> unconstitutional.
> >>>
> >>> For example, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives the
> >>> federal government its powers and jurisdiction. Nowhere in
> >>> Article I, Section 8 is the FedGov given the power to regulate
> >>> education.
> >>>
> >>> Amendment X says that any power not explicitly given to the FedGov
> >>> belongs to the state and/or local governments. Which means regulation
> >>> of education can't even be an implied federal power; it is exclusively
> >>> a matter of state jurisdiction.
> >>>
> >>> The federal Department of Education should be dissolved and dismantled
> >>> because it has no constitutional basis to exist.
> >>>
> >>> And that's just one example of many.
> >>
> >> Inasmuch as doing away with nationwide education today sounds rather
> >> like a foothold for the Apocalypse
> >
> > No one's advocating for the abolishment of education. It's just not a
> > power of the federal government. It's a matter for states to fund,
> > implement, and regulate.
> >
> >> maybe it's time to accept that the Constitution, though often
> >> brilliantly prescient, is NOT a Magic 8-Ball with an endless supply
> >> of oracular "insight".
> >
> > Not even the Founders thought it was a perfect blueprint for society.
> > That's why they included a process for amending it.
> >
> > If federal regulation of education is considered necessity by the vast
> > majority of society, the answer is to amended the Constitution properly,
> > not for the federal government just to ignore the law and do whatever it
> > wants.
>
> Correct me if I'm right, but I suspect the Founders envisioned an
> accessible amendment process far different from today's exercise in cat
> herding.

The process is the same today as it was back then.

> (And, would anyone in his right mind *want* our dysfunctional
> Congress second-guessing Jefferson and Franklin?)

You apparently would since you're advocating to keep the Department of
Education.

> Meanwhile, I'll pontificate that a basic education is a keystone in any
> society that hopes to thrive. So, no, it *shouldn't* be left to 50
> individual states ...any more than a state should leave it to a million
> individual households.

Then start the amendment process. But simply saying "We can ignore the
law whenever it's inconvenient because obeying it is hard work" is no
way to run a government.

On 10/21/2023 5:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <jUWYM.165752$rbid.35389@fx18.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/21/2023 4:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <SQVYM.41774$%WT8.13607@fx12.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/21/2023 2:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <uh12c2$1s7hc$3@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is the Republicans. How many Democrats in Congress do you know of
>>>>>> that have explicitly stated their goal is to dismantle much of the
>>>>>> Federal Government?
>>>>>
>>>>> Much of the federal government *should* be dismantled because it's
>>>>> unconstitutional.
>>>>>
>>>>> For example, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives the
>>>>> federal government its powers and jurisdiction. Nowhere in
>>>>> Article I, Section 8 is the FedGov given the power to regulate
>>>>> education.
>>>>>
>>>>> Amendment X says that any power not explicitly given to the FedGov
>>>>> belongs to the state and/or local governments. Which means regulation
>>>>> of education can't even be an implied federal power; it is exclusively
>>>>> a matter of state jurisdiction.
>>>>>
>>>>> The federal Department of Education should be dissolved and dismantled
>>>>> because it has no constitutional basis to exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> And that's just one example of many.
>>>>
>>>> Inasmuch as doing away with nationwide education today sounds rather
>>>> like a foothold for the Apocalypse
>>>
>>> No one's advocating for the abolishment of education. It's just not a
>>> power of the federal government. It's a matter for states to fund,
>>> implement, and regulate.
>>>
>>>> maybe it's time to accept that the Constitution, though often
>>>> brilliantly prescient, is NOT a Magic 8-Ball with an endless supply
>>>> of oracular "insight".
>>>
>>> Not even the Founders thought it was a perfect blueprint for society.
>>> That's why they included a process for amending it.
>>>
>>> If federal regulation of education is considered necessity by the vast
>>> majority of society, the answer is to amended the Constitution properly,
>>> not for the federal government just to ignore the law and do whatever it
>>> wants.
>>
>> Correct me if I'm right, but I suspect the Founders envisioned an
>> accessible amendment process far different from today's exercise in cat
>> herding.
>
> The process is the same today as it was back then.
>
>> (And, would anyone in his right mind *want* our dysfunctional
>> Congress second-guessing Jefferson and Franklin?)
>
> You apparently would since you're advocating to keep the Department of
> Education.
>
>> Meanwhile, I'll pontificate that a basic education is a keystone in any
>> society that hopes to thrive. So, no, it *shouldn't* be left to 50
>> individual states ...any more than a state should leave it to a million
>> individual households.
>
> Then start the amendment process. But simply saying "We can ignore the
> law whenever it's inconvenient because obeying it is hard work" is no
> way to run a government.

Great, then let's start that 350-year-old amendment process, regardless
of how impractically unusable it's become. In the meantime, however...

In article <vfYYM.68567$HwD9.26275@fx11.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 10/21/2023 5:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <jUWYM.165752$rbid.35389@fx18.iad>,
> > moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/21/2023 4:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> In article <SQVYM.41774$%WT8.13607@fx12.iad>,
> >>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 10/21/2023 2:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>> In article <uh12c2$1s7hc$3@dont-email.me>,
> >>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> It is the Republicans. How many Democrats in Congress do you know of
> >>>>>> that have explicitly stated their goal is to dismantle much of the
> >>>>>> Federal Government?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Much of the federal government *should* be dismantled because it's
> >>>>> unconstitutional.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For example, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives the
> >>>>> federal government its powers and jurisdiction. Nowhere in
> >>>>> Article I, Section 8 is the FedGov given the power to regulate
> >>>>> education.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Amendment X says that any power not explicitly given to the FedGov
> >>>>> belongs to the state and/or local governments. Which means regulation
> >>>>> of education can't even be an implied federal power; it is exclusively
> >>>>> a matter of state jurisdiction.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The federal Department of Education should be dissolved and dismantled
> >>>>> because it has no constitutional basis to exist.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And that's just one example of many.
> >>>>
> >>>> Inasmuch as doing away with nationwide education today sounds rather
> >>>> like a foothold for the Apocalypse
> >>>
> >>> No one's advocating for the abolishment of education. It's just not a
> >>> power of the federal government. It's a matter for states to fund,
> >>> implement, and regulate.
> >>>
> >>>> maybe it's time to accept that the Constitution, though often
> >>>> brilliantly prescient, is NOT a Magic 8-Ball with an endless supply
> >>>> of oracular "insight".
> >>>
> >>> Not even the Founders thought it was a perfect blueprint for society.
> >>> That's why they included a process for amending it.
> >>>
> >>> If federal regulation of education is considered necessity by the vast
> >>> majority of society, the answer is to amended the Constitution properly,
> >>> not for the federal government just to ignore the law and do whatever it
> >>> wants.
> >>
> >> Correct me if I'm right, but I suspect the Founders envisioned an
> >> accessible amendment process far different from today's exercise in cat
> >> herding.
> >
> > The process is the same today as it was back then.
> >
> >> (And, would anyone in his right mind *want* our dysfunctional
> >> Congress second-guessing Jefferson and Franklin?)
> >
> > You apparently would since you're advocating to keep the Department of
> > Education.
> >
> >> Meanwhile, I'll pontificate that a basic education is a keystone in any
> >> society that hopes to thrive. So, no, it *shouldn't* be left to 50
> >> individual states ...any more than a state should leave it to a million
> >> individual households.
> >
> > Then start the amendment process. But simply saying "We can ignore the
> > law whenever it's inconvenient because obeying it is hard work" is no
> > way to run a government.
>
> Great, then let's start that 350-year-old amendment process, regardless
> of how impractically unusable it's become.

Umm... 350 years? Last I checked, it's only been 234 years since the
Constitution went into effect.

> In the meantime, however...

However what? Just do whatever we want when you can't get the votes to
do things right?

On 10/21/23 2:05 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <QYSYM.165665$rbid.144832@fx18.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/21/2023 10:57 AM, suzeeq wrote:
>>> On 10/21/2023 7:33 AM, NoBody wrote:
>
>>>> As far as I know it's allowed but the Dems aren't about making sure
>>>> the government keeps running.
>>>>
>>> Really? Seems like it' the R who have that attitude.
>>
>> It does generally seem that way. For fanciful example, I'd bet AOC
>> thinks about actual governing more than Lauren Boebert does.
>
> Well, of course she does. She's a big government socialist who doesn't
> think there's any minutia of your life that doesn't call for government
> regulation.
>
> It's hardly a surprise that someone like Occasional-Cortex would be
> constantly thinking about government compared to a conservative who
> would be constantly be thinking how to get government out of the way as
> much as possible.
>

How's that working out so far? The House is certainly out of the way,
and absolutely everything is in a state of paralysis.

In less than a month, everything will shut down, and we'll have Thanny's
Utopia.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 10/21/23 2:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <uh12c2$1s7hc$3@dont-email.me>,
> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> It is the Republicans. How many Democrats in Congress do you know of
>> that have explicitly stated their goal is to dismantle much of the
>> Federal Government?
>
> Much of the federal government *should* be dismantled because it's
> unconstitutional.
>
> For example, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives the federal
> government its powers and jurisdiction. Nowhere in Article I, Section 8
> is the FedGov given the power to regulate education.
>
> Amendment X says that any power not explicitly given to the FedGov
> belongs to the state and/or local governments. Which means regulation of
> education can't even be an implied federal power; it is exclusively a
> matter of state jurisdiction.
>
> The federal Department of Education should be dissolved and dismantled
> because it has no constitutional basis to exist.
>
> And that's just one example of many.
>

Example of bullshit, sure is.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 10/21/23 12:27 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 10/21/2023 10:57 AM, suzeeq wrote:
>> On 10/21/2023 7:34 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 16:13:20 -0700, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/20/2023 1:39 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>> On 10/20/2023 1:48 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why can't the Dems, the nearly equal minority party, effectively
>>>>>> choose the Speaker of the House from among Repubs they find somewhat
>>>>>> palatable and who would garner at least a dozen or so Repub votes?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And, if they can, why don't/haven't they?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (I'm sure the answer is elementary, but I skipped elementary school.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for all the responses.  Let me be clearer about the proposal:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>      The House Repubs have a slight majority, but can't become
>>>>> unanimous
>>>>> enough among themselves to elect a Speaker.
>>>>>
>>>>>      I would *assume* that, among the 200+ House Repubs, there must
>>>>> be a
>>>>> *few* whom the Dems consider preferable to the rest.
>>>>>
>>>>>      And, among those few Repubs should be one or two who'd receive at
>>>>> least a dozen or so of their fellow Repubs' votes.
>>>>>
>>>>>      Those dozen-plus votes along with 200-plus Dem votes, would
>>>>> suffice
>>>>> to install a *Repub* Speaker that Dems nevertheless find preferable to
>>>>> most Repub alternatives.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To me, this prospect seems so rational that I question whether it's
>>>>> not
>>>>> somehow disallowed...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I think the Dems have no intention of voting for a Repub for speaker.
>>>> Not necessarily because they're R, but because they're all incompetent.
>>>
>>> Yeah that it's it...
>>>
>>> <eyeroll>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> There's 221 R representatives, there needs to be 217 votes to be
>>>> elected. The Rs don't need Ds to get it done. See reference to
>>>> incompetency above.
>>>
>>> The dems caused the issue by voting as a block to overthrow the
>>> speaker (only 8 Republicans voted that way).  It is THEIR duty to help
>>> fix the problem they created.
>>>
>> No, it's the Rs duty to elect a speaker.
>
> Actually, I think 'Nobody' may have a point here.  The Dems' concerted
> effort seems to have been less to reject McCarthy than to publicly
> expose/exploit Repub disarray.  They can't really complain of Congress's
> being Speaker-less if it was exactly their objective.
>
>

That's absurd, pig. The Dems DID vote for a speaker, in case you didn't
notice. They voted every single time.

And their choice actually got the MOST votes.

What you're describing is the notion that the Democrats have to choose
from a list provided by Republicans. Is that NOT absurd?

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 10/21/23 2:03 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <a_SYM.165666$rbid.99050@fx18.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/21/2023 10:57 AM, suzeeq wrote:
>
>>> On 10/21/2023 7:34 AM, NoBody wrote:
>
>>>> The dems caused the issue by voting as a block to overthrow the
>>>> speaker (only 8 Republicans voted that way).  It is THEIR duty to help
>>>> fix the problem they created.
>>>>
>>> No, it's the Rs duty to elect a speaker.
>>
>> Actually, I think 'Nobody' may have a point here. The Dems' concerted
>> effort seems to have been less to reject McCarthy than to publicly
>> expose/exploit Repub disarray. They can't really complain of Congress's
>> being Speaker-less if it was exactly their objective.
>
> ^^^This.
>

And it (as usual) is total bullshit. The Dems voted for their
candidate. It isn't their job to elect who Republicans want.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 10/21/2023 10:43 PM, FPP wrote:
> On 10/21/23 12:27 PM, moviePig wrote:
>> On 10/21/2023 10:57 AM, suzeeq wrote:
>>> On 10/21/2023 7:34 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 16:13:20 -0700, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/20/2023 1:39 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/20/2023 1:48 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why can't the Dems, the nearly equal minority party, effectively
>>>>>>> choose the Speaker of the House from among Repubs they find somewhat
>>>>>>> palatable and who would garner at least a dozen or so Repub votes?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And, if they can, why don't/haven't they?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (I'm sure the answer is elementary, but I skipped elementary
>>>>>>> school.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for all the responses.  Let me be clearer about the proposal:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      The House Repubs have a slight majority, but can't become
>>>>>> unanimous
>>>>>> enough among themselves to elect a Speaker.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      I would *assume* that, among the 200+ House Repubs, there
>>>>>> must be a
>>>>>> *few* whom the Dems consider preferable to the rest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      And, among those few Repubs should be one or two who'd
>>>>>> receive at
>>>>>> least a dozen or so of their fellow Repubs' votes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      Those dozen-plus votes along with 200-plus Dem votes, would
>>>>>> suffice
>>>>>> to install a *Repub* Speaker that Dems nevertheless find
>>>>>> preferable to
>>>>>> most Repub alternatives.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To me, this prospect seems so rational that I question whether
>>>>>> it's not
>>>>>> somehow disallowed...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> I think the Dems have no intention of voting for a Repub for speaker.
>>>>> Not necessarily because they're R, but because they're all
>>>>> incompetent.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah that it's it...
>>>>
>>>> <eyeroll>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There's 221 R representatives, there needs to be 217 votes to be
>>>>> elected. The Rs don't need Ds to get it done. See reference to
>>>>> incompetency above.
>>>>
>>>> The dems caused the issue by voting as a block to overthrow the
>>>> speaker (only 8 Republicans voted that way).  It is THEIR duty to help
>>>> fix the problem they created.
>>>>
>>> No, it's the Rs duty to elect a speaker.
>>
>> Actually, I think 'Nobody' may have a point here.  The Dems' concerted
>> effort seems to have been less to reject McCarthy than to publicly
>> expose/exploit Repub disarray.  They can't really complain of
>> Congress's being Speaker-less if it was exactly their objective.
>>
>>
>
> That's absurd, pig.  The Dems DID vote for a speaker, in case you didn't
> notice.  They voted every single time.
>
> And their choice actually got the MOST votes.
>
> What you're describing is the notion that the Democrats have to choose
> from a list provided by Republicans.  Is that NOT absurd?

What I'm describing is how the Dems may *prefer* the current vacancy.

On 10/21/2023 6:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <vfYYM.68567$HwD9.26275@fx11.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/21/2023 5:20 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <jUWYM.165752$rbid.35389@fx18.iad>,
>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/21/2023 4:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> In article <SQVYM.41774$%WT8.13607@fx12.iad>,
>>>>> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/21/2023 2:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <uh12c2$1s7hc$3@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is the Republicans. How many Democrats in Congress do you know of
>>>>>>>> that have explicitly stated their goal is to dismantle much of the
>>>>>>>> Federal Government?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Much of the federal government *should* be dismantled because it's
>>>>>>> unconstitutional.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For example, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives the
>>>>>>> federal government its powers and jurisdiction. Nowhere in
>>>>>>> Article I, Section 8 is the FedGov given the power to regulate
>>>>>>> education.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Amendment X says that any power not explicitly given to the FedGov
>>>>>>> belongs to the state and/or local governments. Which means regulation
>>>>>>> of education can't even be an implied federal power; it is exclusively
>>>>>>> a matter of state jurisdiction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The federal Department of Education should be dissolved and dismantled
>>>>>>> because it has no constitutional basis to exist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And that's just one example of many.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Inasmuch as doing away with nationwide education today sounds rather
>>>>>> like a foothold for the Apocalypse
>>>>>
>>>>> No one's advocating for the abolishment of education. It's just not a
>>>>> power of the federal government. It's a matter for states to fund,
>>>>> implement, and regulate.
>>>>>
>>>>>> maybe it's time to accept that the Constitution, though often
>>>>>> brilliantly prescient, is NOT a Magic 8-Ball with an endless supply
>>>>>> of oracular "insight".
>>>>>
>>>>> Not even the Founders thought it was a perfect blueprint for society.
>>>>> That's why they included a process for amending it.
>>>>>
>>>>> If federal regulation of education is considered necessity by the vast
>>>>> majority of society, the answer is to amended the Constitution properly,
>>>>> not for the federal government just to ignore the law and do whatever it
>>>>> wants.
>>>>
>>>> Correct me if I'm right, but I suspect the Founders envisioned an
>>>> accessible amendment process far different from today's exercise in cat
>>>> herding.
>>>
>>> The process is the same today as it was back then.
>>>
>>>> (And, would anyone in his right mind *want* our dysfunctional
>>>> Congress second-guessing Jefferson and Franklin?)
>>>
>>> You apparently would since you're advocating to keep the Department of
>>> Education.
>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, I'll pontificate that a basic education is a keystone in any
>>>> society that hopes to thrive. So, no, it *shouldn't* be left to 50
>>>> individual states ...any more than a state should leave it to a million
>>>> individual households.
>>>
>>> Then start the amendment process. But simply saying "We can ignore the
>>> law whenever it's inconvenient because obeying it is hard work" is no
>>> way to run a government.
>>
>> Great, then let's start that 350-year-old amendment process, regardless
>> of how impractically unusable it's become.
>
> Umm... 350 years? Last I checked, it's only been 234 years since the
> Constitution went into effect.

Typo.

>> In the meantime, however...
>
> However what? Just do whatever we want when you can't get the votes to
> do things right?

Do what's necessary to stay afloat until a miracle occurs...

On 10/21/23 11:24 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 10/21/2023 10:43 PM, FPP wrote:
>> On 10/21/23 12:27 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>> On 10/21/2023 10:57 AM, suzeeq wrote:
>>>> On 10/21/2023 7:34 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 16:13:20 -0700, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/20/2023 1:39 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/20/2023 1:48 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why can't the Dems, the nearly equal minority party, effectively
>>>>>>>> choose the Speaker of the House from among Repubs they find
>>>>>>>> somewhat
>>>>>>>> palatable and who would garner at least a dozen or so Repub votes?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And, if they can, why don't/haven't they?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (I'm sure the answer is elementary, but I skipped elementary
>>>>>>>> school.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for all the responses.  Let me be clearer about the proposal:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      The House Repubs have a slight majority, but can't become
>>>>>>> unanimous
>>>>>>> enough among themselves to elect a Speaker.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      I would *assume* that, among the 200+ House Repubs, there
>>>>>>> must be a
>>>>>>> *few* whom the Dems consider preferable to the rest.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      And, among those few Repubs should be one or two who'd
>>>>>>> receive at
>>>>>>> least a dozen or so of their fellow Repubs' votes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      Those dozen-plus votes along with 200-plus Dem votes, would
>>>>>>> suffice
>>>>>>> to install a *Repub* Speaker that Dems nevertheless find
>>>>>>> preferable to
>>>>>>> most Repub alternatives.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To me, this prospect seems so rational that I question whether
>>>>>>> it's not
>>>>>>> somehow disallowed...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the Dems have no intention of voting for a Repub for speaker.
>>>>>> Not necessarily because they're R, but because they're all
>>>>>> incompetent.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah that it's it...
>>>>>
>>>>> <eyeroll>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's 221 R representatives, there needs to be 217 votes to be
>>>>>> elected. The Rs don't need Ds to get it done. See reference to
>>>>>> incompetency above.
>>>>>
>>>>> The dems caused the issue by voting as a block to overthrow the
>>>>> speaker (only 8 Republicans voted that way).  It is THEIR duty to help
>>>>> fix the problem they created.
>>>>>
>>>> No, it's the Rs duty to elect a speaker.
>>>
>>> Actually, I think 'Nobody' may have a point here.  The Dems'
>>> concerted effort seems to have been less to reject McCarthy than to
>>> publicly expose/exploit Repub disarray.  They can't really complain
>>> of Congress's being Speaker-less if it was exactly their objective.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That's absurd, pig.  The Dems DID vote for a speaker, in case you
>> didn't notice.  They voted every single time.
>>
>> And their choice actually got the MOST votes.
>>
>> What you're describing is the notion that the Democrats have to choose
>> from a list provided by Republicans.  Is that NOT absurd?
>
> What I'm describing is how the Dems may *prefer* the current vacancy.

What the fuck do you know about what the Dems prefer? You're daydreaming.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 10/21/23 11:24 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 10/21/2023 10:43 PM, FPP wrote:
>> On 10/21/23 12:27 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>> On 10/21/2023 10:57 AM, suzeeq wrote:
>>>> On 10/21/2023 7:34 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 16:13:20 -0700, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/20/2023 1:39 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/20/2023 1:48 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why can't the Dems, the nearly equal minority party, effectively
>>>>>>>> choose the Speaker of the House from among Repubs they find
>>>>>>>> somewhat
>>>>>>>> palatable and who would garner at least a dozen or so Repub votes?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And, if they can, why don't/haven't they?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (I'm sure the answer is elementary, but I skipped elementary
>>>>>>>> school.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for all the responses.  Let me be clearer about the proposal:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      The House Repubs have a slight majority, but can't become
>>>>>>> unanimous
>>>>>>> enough among themselves to elect a Speaker.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      I would *assume* that, among the 200+ House Repubs, there
>>>>>>> must be a
>>>>>>> *few* whom the Dems consider preferable to the rest.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      And, among those few Repubs should be one or two who'd
>>>>>>> receive at
>>>>>>> least a dozen or so of their fellow Repubs' votes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      Those dozen-plus votes along with 200-plus Dem votes, would
>>>>>>> suffice
>>>>>>> to install a *Repub* Speaker that Dems nevertheless find
>>>>>>> preferable to
>>>>>>> most Repub alternatives.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To me, this prospect seems so rational that I question whether
>>>>>>> it's not
>>>>>>> somehow disallowed...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the Dems have no intention of voting for a Repub for speaker.
>>>>>> Not necessarily because they're R, but because they're all
>>>>>> incompetent.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah that it's it...
>>>>>
>>>>> <eyeroll>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's 221 R representatives, there needs to be 217 votes to be
>>>>>> elected. The Rs don't need Ds to get it done. See reference to
>>>>>> incompetency above.
>>>>>
>>>>> The dems caused the issue by voting as a block to overthrow the
>>>>> speaker (only 8 Republicans voted that way).  It is THEIR duty to help
>>>>> fix the problem they created.
>>>>>
>>>> No, it's the Rs duty to elect a speaker.
>>>
>>> Actually, I think 'Nobody' may have a point here.  The Dems'
>>> concerted effort seems to have been less to reject McCarthy than to
>>> publicly expose/exploit Repub disarray.  They can't really complain
>>> of Congress's being Speaker-less if it was exactly their objective.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That's absurd, pig.  The Dems DID vote for a speaker, in case you
>> didn't notice.  They voted every single time.
>>
>> And their choice actually got the MOST votes.
>>
>> What you're describing is the notion that the Democrats have to choose
>> from a list provided by Republicans.  Is that NOT absurd?
>
> What I'm describing is how the Dems may *prefer* the current vacancy.

So let me get this straight... the REPUBLICANS ousted the Speaker they
chose. And had no plan on what to do next.
Then the REPUBLICANS designated Scalise as their new nominee.
And then they wouldn't vote for him.

Then the REPUBLICANS designated Jordan as their new nominee.
And then they wouldn't elect him on a first ballot. (-20)
And then they wouldn't elect him on a second ballot. (-22)
And then they wouldn't elect him on a third ballot. (-25)
Each time, Jordan lost more REPUBLICAN support every time they rejected him.

And you think Dems prefer things NOT to work? Let me ask, then, when it
came to getting the government going when it was about to be shutdown,
who was it that made the deal with REPUBLICANS?

Yeah. It was the guys you think prefer the House not to work.
Dems want aid to Ukraine and Israel passed ASAP, but they can't get it
done until they have a Speaker - and for that, they need REPUBLICANS to
pick their goddamned Speaker.

They're not going to do it for them. It's the REPUBLICANS House, and it
runs under a REPUBLICAN rules package. All the REPUBLICANS need to do
is negotiate with them - but that's another thing REPUBLICANS won't do.

Absurd.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 10/22/23 4:29 AM, FPP wrote:
> On 10/21/23 11:24 PM, moviePig wrote:
>> On 10/21/2023 10:43 PM, FPP wrote:
>>> On 10/21/23 12:27 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>> On 10/21/2023 10:57 AM, suzeeq wrote:
>>>>> On 10/21/2023 7:34 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 16:13:20 -0700, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/20/2023 1:39 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/20/2023 1:48 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why can't the Dems, the nearly equal minority party, effectively
>>>>>>>>> choose the Speaker of the House from among Repubs they find
>>>>>>>>> somewhat
>>>>>>>>> palatable and who would garner at least a dozen or so Repub votes?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And, if they can, why don't/haven't they?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (I'm sure the answer is elementary, but I skipped elementary
>>>>>>>>> school.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for all the responses.  Let me be clearer about the
>>>>>>>> proposal:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>      The House Repubs have a slight majority, but can't become
>>>>>>>> unanimous
>>>>>>>> enough among themselves to elect a Speaker.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>      I would *assume* that, among the 200+ House Repubs, there
>>>>>>>> must be a
>>>>>>>> *few* whom the Dems consider preferable to the rest.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>      And, among those few Repubs should be one or two who'd
>>>>>>>> receive at
>>>>>>>> least a dozen or so of their fellow Repubs' votes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>      Those dozen-plus votes along with 200-plus Dem votes, would
>>>>>>>> suffice
>>>>>>>> to install a *Repub* Speaker that Dems nevertheless find
>>>>>>>> preferable to
>>>>>>>> most Repub alternatives.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To me, this prospect seems so rational that I question whether
>>>>>>>> it's not
>>>>>>>> somehow disallowed...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the Dems have no intention of voting for a Repub for
>>>>>>> speaker.
>>>>>>> Not necessarily because they're R, but because they're all
>>>>>>> incompetent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah that it's it...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <eyeroll>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's 221 R representatives, there needs to be 217 votes to be
>>>>>>> elected. The Rs don't need Ds to get it done. See reference to
>>>>>>> incompetency above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The dems caused the issue by voting as a block to overthrow the
>>>>>> speaker (only 8 Republicans voted that way).  It is THEIR duty to
>>>>>> help
>>>>>> fix the problem they created.
>>>>>>
>>>>> No, it's the Rs duty to elect a speaker.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, I think 'Nobody' may have a point here.  The Dems'
>>>> concerted effort seems to have been less to reject McCarthy than to
>>>> publicly expose/exploit Repub disarray.  They can't really complain
>>>> of Congress's being Speaker-less if it was exactly their objective.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's absurd, pig.  The Dems DID vote for a speaker, in case you
>>> didn't notice.  They voted every single time.
>>>
>>> And their choice actually got the MOST votes.
>>>
>>> What you're describing is the notion that the Democrats have to
>>> choose from a list provided by Republicans.  Is that NOT absurd?
>>
>> What I'm describing is how the Dems may *prefer* the current vacancy.
>
>
> What the fuck do you know about what the Dems prefer?  You're daydreaming.

He did use the word "may" so that does include he may be clueless on the
subject.

On 10/21/23 10:24 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 10/21/2023 10:43 PM, FPP wrote:
>> On 10/21/23 12:27 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>> On 10/21/2023 10:57 AM, suzeeq wrote:
>>>> On 10/21/2023 7:34 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 16:13:20 -0700, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/20/2023 1:39 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/20/2023 1:48 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why can't the Dems, the nearly equal minority party, effectively
>>>>>>>> choose the Speaker of the House from among Repubs they find
>>>>>>>> somewhat
>>>>>>>> palatable and who would garner at least a dozen or so Repub votes?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And, if they can, why don't/haven't they?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (I'm sure the answer is elementary, but I skipped elementary
>>>>>>>> school.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for all the responses.  Let me be clearer about the proposal:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      The House Repubs have a slight majority, but can't become
>>>>>>> unanimous
>>>>>>> enough among themselves to elect a Speaker.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      I would *assume* that, among the 200+ House Repubs, there
>>>>>>> must be a
>>>>>>> *few* whom the Dems consider preferable to the rest.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      And, among those few Repubs should be one or two who'd
>>>>>>> receive at
>>>>>>> least a dozen or so of their fellow Repubs' votes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      Those dozen-plus votes along with 200-plus Dem votes, would
>>>>>>> suffice
>>>>>>> to install a *Repub* Speaker that Dems nevertheless find
>>>>>>> preferable to
>>>>>>> most Repub alternatives.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To me, this prospect seems so rational that I question whether
>>>>>>> it's not
>>>>>>> somehow disallowed...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the Dems have no intention of voting for a Repub for speaker.
>>>>>> Not necessarily because they're R, but because they're all
>>>>>> incompetent.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah that it's it...
>>>>>
>>>>> <eyeroll>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's 221 R representatives, there needs to be 217 votes to be
>>>>>> elected. The Rs don't need Ds to get it done. See reference to
>>>>>> incompetency above.
>>>>>
>>>>> The dems caused the issue by voting as a block to overthrow the
>>>>> speaker (only 8 Republicans voted that way).  It is THEIR duty to help
>>>>> fix the problem they created.
>>>>>
>>>> No, it's the Rs duty to elect a speaker.
>>>
>>> Actually, I think 'Nobody' may have a point here.  The Dems'
>>> concerted effort seems to have been less to reject McCarthy than to
>>> publicly expose/exploit Repub disarray.  They can't really complain
>>> of Congress's being Speaker-less if it was exactly their objective.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That's absurd, pig.  The Dems DID vote for a speaker, in case you
>> didn't notice.  They voted every single time.
>>
>> And their choice actually got the MOST votes.
>>
>> What you're describing is the notion that the Democrats have to choose
>> from a list provided by Republicans.  Is that NOT absurd?
>
> What I'm describing is how the Dems may *prefer* the current vacancy.

How is this particular form of mental masturbation in any way helpful?

On 10/21/23 9:32 PM, FPP wrote:
> On 10/21/23 2:05 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <QYSYM.165665$rbid.144832@fx18.iad>,
>>   moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/21/2023 10:57 AM, suzeeq wrote:
>>>> On 10/21/2023 7:33 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>
>>>>> As far as I know it's allowed but the Dems aren't about making sure
>>>>> the government keeps running.
>>>>>
>>>> Really? Seems like it' the R who have that attitude.
>>>
>>> It does generally seem that way. For fanciful example, I'd bet AOC
>>> thinks about actual governing more than Lauren Boebert does.
>>
>> Well, of course she does. She's a big government socialist who doesn't
>> think there's any minutia of your life that doesn't call for government
>> regulation.
>>
>> It's hardly a surprise that someone like Occasional-Cortex would be
>> constantly thinking about government compared to a conservative who
>> would be constantly be thinking how to get government out of the way as
>> much as possible.
>>
>
>
> How's that working out so far?  The House is certainly out of the way,
> and absolutely everything is in a state of paralysis.
>
> In less than a month, everything will shut down, and we'll have Thanny's
> Utopia.

That's our Oath Keeper Troon, an endless parade of platitudes and horseshit.