Posted on 12/19/2024 6:24:09 PM PST by ransomnote
I wouldn’t trust Nancy Mace to explain tic tac toe correctly. Boilerplate doesn’t take 1400 pages. The must be some other differences.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNCCAtmyAEQ
“NostraThomas” Massie Calling Out Swamp’s Christmas Omnibus
“Tell you what. If my Rep Gosar voted against then there was still something very wrong with it. Someone snuck something in we did not want. He normally backs Trump with everything he does. In fact he was at the podium speaking against the 2020 election and supporting Trump when the shot was fired jan 6th.”
Dittos…my guy as well.
Of the ones I heard:
Most argued that structural reform was needed; others argued that the House Speaker’s job is to govern the House, which no one has done in a long time. Until those things were done they would continue to vote NO.
All mentioned spending to one degree or another, but that was not fundamental to their vote. All seemed to feel that the bill used blanket numbers, rather than specific numbers - using $100 million instead of $96.2 million to address the specific need.
If that is truly the case, then I redirect my request to the other pukes who went along with the sham and recommend they get the Harry Reid treatment daily until their morals and ethics improve, or they retire.
Thank you!
Are Republicans capable of a WINNING “Bare Knuckle Political Fight?”
Perhaps they will gain that skill, now that DJT is in charge?
just shut DC down.
The reform I'd like to see is the reduction of the discharge petition period from 30 days to 3. Essentially, that would let any bill that has the support of a majority of members be brought to a vote even if the leaders of each party don't support it.
That theoretically weakens the power of the Speaker, but that matters a lot less when the margin is as tiny as it is going to be.
It would be ludicrous for Republicans to suggest that the Speaker needs to take stronger control
—
Stronger control and governing are not the same things. Its not the Speakers job to control, but to govern. And that they try to control is exactly what is wrong with the way the House is run.
Good for them. The government has been spending outlandishly. As much as Trump is supported, it can’t be ignorerd that the national debt went up quite a bit during his first administration.
In this context, what do they exactly mean by “govern” the house? In concrete terms, what would that mean for this current dispute?
what do they exactly mean by “govern” the house? In concrete terms, what would that mean for this current dispute?
—
Govern means govern. If you are going to parse the word, it will become meaningless.
If the Speaker would govern, then problems like this would never happen.
I think you defining the word with itself renders it meaningless.
So they want him to "govern", but won't say what that means? Gee, no wonder they're failing.
Saying they want the Speaker to "govern" (undefined), while having taken most of the authority away from the position, makes no sense. At least not without some kind of explanation.
So what is the Speaker supposed to do about that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.