On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 07:57:08 -0700, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> 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.

Given that the Republicans are at least trying to get someone the
majority, I'd say not so much. But a pox on both their houses as far
as I'm concerned.

On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 10:39:15 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>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.

What does any of this have to do with the fact that the Dems voted as
a block to overthow the speaker and now do nothing to get another one
in? At least the Republicans are trying to get someone nominated but
that does not leave them blameless.

On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 13:17:52 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> 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.

Isn't it interesting how the opposing side took what you said and
completely misstated it in an attempt to make a "point"?

On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 18:27:39 -0400, 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. In the meantime, however...
>

You just proved him correct, do you realize that?

On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 07:57:53 -0700, 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.

We're well past that nonsense. For the good of government, both sides
need to work together to get government working. I guess that's a
foreign concept to you.

On 10/22/2023 5:44 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.
>
>
> 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.

Start with the speculation of this thread that the Dems *could* effect a
Speaker from among Repubs *today*, and add to it the bad press that
Repub disarray is currently getting. Or don't.

On 10/22/2023 7:25 AM, trotsky wrote:
> 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?

Well, to quote Robt. B. Parker: it's better to know than not to know.
But, apart from that, my observation only arose from an offhanded
exchange between 'Nobody' and 'suzeeQ' that I offhandedly commented on.
Not everything has to advance the eschaton.

On 10/22/23 10:12 AM, moviePig wrote:
> On 10/22/2023 5:44 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.
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
> Start with the speculation of this thread that the Dems *could* effect a
> Speaker from among Repubs *today*, and add to it the bad press that
> Repub disarray is currently getting.  Or don't.

It's an incredibly stupid idea. The Dems are under zero obligation to
vote for any of the pieces of shit Republicans have put forward. None.
Zero. That;s not how any of this works.

R's HAVE THE MAJORITY. If they want to get Dem votes, they have to
negotiate with them. They have to GIVE them a reason to do so. They won't.

This is not a hard thing to understand. The Dems did vote for their
candidate for Speaker. What YOU want is for them to vote for the
Republican's candidate... and that's just nuts.

Whenever did you see Republicans voting for Nancy Pelosi out of the
kindness of their hearts? This is a Republican problem.

--
"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 7:25 AM, trotsky wrote:
> 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?

The Dems want a Speaker because it's necessary to run the country.
Republicans don't. If they did, they wouldn't have thrown theirs out
without a plan.

--
"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 10/22/2023 9:49 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 18:27:39 -0400, 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. In the meantime, however...
>>
>
> You just proved him correct, do you realize that?

Not keeping score. But, no, I don't.

moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
> On 10/22/2023 7:25 AM, trotsky wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Well, to quote Robt. B. Parker:

“She had the kind of legs that women think men like, and men think are too
thin”.

> But, apart from that, my observation only arose from an offhanded
> exchange between 'Nobody' and 'suzeeQ' that I offhandedly commented on.
> Not everything has to advance the eschaton.
>
>
>
>

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On 10/22/23 10:23 AM, moviePig wrote:
> On 10/22/2023 7:25 AM, trotsky wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Well, to quote Robt. B. Parker: it's better to know than not to know.
> But, apart from that, my observation only arose from an offhanded
> exchange between 'Nobody' and 'suzeeQ' that I offhandedly commented on.
> Not everything has to advance the eschaton.

Well, when you're talking to Nobody, you're really talking to nobody. I
keep seeing the same crap over and over, wherever I turn.

Republicans can't govern, so they go on TV and in print to explain how
the Big Bad Dems won't help them, so it's their fault we can't have
anything nice.

It's like a burglar blaming the burgled for not helping him carry out
your TV set. Next they'll be blaming Biden and Harris for January 6th
for not resigning and clearing the way for Trump's second term.

--
"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 10/22/2023 10:34 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> On 10/22/2023 7:25 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>> Well, to quote Robt. B. Parker:
>
> “She had the kind of legs that women think men like, and men think are too
> thin”.
> ...

....channeling Raymond Chandler.

On 10/22/23 10:32 AM, moviePig wrote:
> On 10/22/2023 9:49 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 18:27:39 -0400, 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.  In the meantime, however...
>>>
>>
>> You just proved him correct, do you realize that?
>
> Not keeping score.  But, no, I don't.

Saying you can't circumvent the Constitution in this way is
disingenuous. Ask the Supreme Court where it says they have the power
of Judicial Review?

Cuz it wasn't by law, and it isn't in the Constitution. They just
interpreted it into being.

> The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803).
>
> In this case, the Court had to decide whether an Act of Congress or the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus (legal orders compelling government officials to act in accordance with the law). A suit was brought under this Act, but the Supreme Court noted that the Constitution did not permit the Court to have original jurisdiction in this matter. Since Article VI of the Constitution establishes the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that an Act of Congress that is contrary to the Constitution could not stand. In subsequent cases, the Court also established its authority to strike down state laws found to be in violation of the Constitution.

They gave themselves the power... Seems like no Amendment was needed then.

--
"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 10:32 AM, moviePig wrote:
> On 10/22/2023 9:49 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 18:27:39 -0400, 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.  In the meantime, however...
>>>
>>
>> You just proved him correct, do you realize that?
>
> Not keeping score.  But, no, I don't.

Saying you can't circumvent the Constitution in this way is
disingenuous. Ask the Supreme Court where it says they have the power
of Judicial Review?

Cuz it wasn't by law, and it isn't in the Constitution. They just
interpreted it into being.

> The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803).
>
> In this case, the Court had to decide whether an Act of Congress or the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus (legal orders compelling government officials to act in accordance with the law). A suit was brought under this Act, but the Supreme Court noted that the Constitution did not permit the Court to have original jurisdiction in this matter. Since Article VI of the Constitution establishes the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that an Act of Congress that is contrary to the Constitution could not stand. In subsequent cases, the Court also established its authority to strike down state laws found to be in violation of the Constitution.

They gave themselves the power... Seems like no Amendment was needed then.

--
"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 10/22/2023 10:36 AM, FPP wrote:
> On 10/22/23 10:23 AM, moviePig wrote:
>> On 10/22/2023 7:25 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>> Well, to quote Robt. B. Parker: it's better to know than not to know.
>> But, apart from that, my observation only arose from an offhanded
>> exchange between 'Nobody' and 'suzeeQ' that I offhandedly commented
>> on. Not everything has to advance the eschaton.
>
>
> Well, when you're talking to Nobody, you're really talking to nobody.  I
> keep seeing the same crap over and over, wherever I turn.
>
> Republicans can't govern, so they go on TV and in print to explain how
> the Big Bad Dems won't help them, so it's their fault we can't have
> anything nice.
>
> It's like a burglar blaming the burgled for not helping him carry out
> your TV set.  Next they'll be blaming Biden and Harris for January 6th
> for not resigning and clearing the way for Trump's second term.

What I said was that, to the extent they're enjoying and may wish to
prolong the current situation, the Dems can't complain of it.

On 10/22/23 11:04 AM, moviePig wrote:
> On 10/22/2023 10:36 AM, FPP wrote:
>> On 10/22/23 10:23 AM, moviePig wrote:
>>> On 10/22/2023 7:25 AM, trotsky wrote:
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> Well, to quote Robt. B. Parker: it's better to know than not to know.
>>> But, apart from that, my observation only arose from an offhanded
>>> exchange between 'Nobody' and 'suzeeQ' that I offhandedly commented
>>> on. Not everything has to advance the eschaton.
>>
>>
>> Well, when you're talking to Nobody, you're really talking to nobody.
>> I keep seeing the same crap over and over, wherever I turn.
>>
>> Republicans can't govern, so they go on TV and in print to explain how
>> the Big Bad Dems won't help them, so it's their fault we can't have
>> anything nice.
>>
>> It's like a burglar blaming the burgled for not helping him carry out
>> your TV set.  Next they'll be blaming Biden and Harris for January 6th
>> for not resigning and clearing the way for Trump's second term.
>
> What I said was that, to the extent they're enjoying and may wish to
> prolong the current situation, the Dems can't complain of it.

Why not? I complain about how they're treating Trump unlike any
ordinary defendant - and I'm also enjoying every minute of his agony.

Why the hell shouldn't I? He (and they) deserve every ounce of it.
Nothing unusual of abnormal about it. We all do it. You seem to think
the Dems should be above it.

--
"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 9:23 AM, moviePig wrote:
> On 10/22/2023 7:25 AM, trotsky wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Well, to quote Robt. B. Parker: it's better to know than not to know.

That dude must've never had a woman cheat on him then.

> But, apart from that, my observation only arose from an offhanded
> exchange between 'Nobody' and 'suzeeQ' that I offhandedly commented on.
> Not everything has to advance the eschaton.

Sure, hence the clinical term "mental masturbation."

On 10/22/23 9:31 AM, FPP wrote:
> On 10/22/23 7:25 AM, trotsky wrote:
>> 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?
>
>
>
> The Dems want a Speaker because it's necessary to run the country.
> Republicans don't.  If they did, they wouldn't have thrown theirs out
> without a plan.
>

100% Put in terms moviepig may understand, Republicans are the
Ivermectin of politicians.

On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 23:31:30 -0400, moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
wrote:

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

That strategy may work well in Roadrunner cartoons but it's one
helluva way to run a government!

(Though I confess sometimes when I hear some of the stuff that comes
from the Hill I understand how some might be confused...)