Gaetz says he will force vote to oust McCarthy as House speaker

[Green Sun]

Any Ukraine deal would include border security. Otherwise, voters won't support it.

Why can't they happen concurrently then? Why _must_ the border funding go through first here?

It just seems like yet another excuse to let the GOP refuse to hold up their end of the bargain yet again. "Do yet another bill that gives only the GOP what they want, and maybe this time they'll finally do what you want after you've gotten rid of your only leverage." What stops the GOP from saying "sorry suckers", and refusing to pass a later Ukraine aid bill? Why should the Dems trust the GOP? The GOP should be bending over backwards here to try and rebuild trust they've burned.

As an aside, I strong dislike trying to link together concerns about the border with an actual war. They're two separate issues, let's treat them as such

I also would be one of those voters that doesn't care about border security (since it tends to just be "treat migrants worse") but does want aid to Ukraine.

 

[FenderTL5]

In MAGA world even the notion of superficial bipartisanship is a bridge too far.
What's funny about that is, that in order to punish McCarthy for working with the dems they had to, you guessed it, vote with the democrats.
Yes, it wouldn't be a modern day GOP travesty without a healthy serving of oblivious irony.
- Trae Crowder

**linkage to original contains some objectional language

 

[essentialsaltes]

Lots of people piling on Gaetz, including people willing to 'go there'. Republicans Are So Mad They’re Airing All of Matt Gaetz’s Dirty Laundry

OK, it's fish in a barrel, but LA Times went to McCarthy's district to talk to GOP voters.

‘Evil,’ ‘delusional,’ ‘Benedict Arnold’: In Kevin McCarthy’s Bakersfield, Matt Gaetz draws ire​

“Matt Gaetz is a narcissistic, evil and vengeful little man,” said Annette Londquist, the head of Bakersfield Republican Women, a club that counts McCarthy among its 515 members.

Gaetz “is an angry man,” she said, “and his anger is aimed at Kevin. I would say he just couldn’t let go of the vengeance in his heart, but he doesn’t have a heart.”

“Gaetz is important in the way that a faulty bolt on a jetliner is important,” [vice chair of the Kern County Republican Party] Campbell said. “It can cause incredible damage without doing anything good.”

“I don’t even see it as a GOP problem,” said Margot Shinn, a residential mortgage lender who lives down the street from McCarthy. “It’s the far right — you know, Matt Gaetz and that group.”

“The party is beginning to fray,” she said.

From your lips to God's ears, Margot.

 

[camille70]

Yep. If Republicans expect the Dems to save the GOP from themselves, while the official position of the Republican party increasingly teeters towards "Democrats are evil incarnate", then the GOP is even stupider than I thought.

Personally I'm glad dems didn't step in to save McCarthy. Their instinct is always to be a buffer against the worst of the GOP, to step in to minimize pain for Americans and do what they can to protect the institutions and avoid chaos. Due to this, Americans never see the results and full impact of GOP policies and governance, so things don't seem so bad when the GOP is in charge. Dems are finally being more strategic.

The first time I saw this happen was during the Trump shutdown. Dems wanted to cave because their constituents were hurting. Nancy held everyone together. Even though Americans were experiencing pain, had they not stood strong, every time Trump wanted to manipulate dems for a certain outcome, it would have happened again. The shut down went on longer than normal, but it stopped the GOP from using it as a threat on a regular basis for the rest of his term.

Right now the GOP is more upset with dems than they are with the person to brought the motion to vacate or the other 7 GOP members who voted to go along with it. They were shocked and outraged. This time dems did not save the GOP from the consequences of their actions. This time (hopefully) the entire country can see how poorly the GOP governs.

Hopefully it helps dems regain control of the House.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm not so sure a Republican civil war in the House is the kind of distraction they are looking for. A member pulling a fire alarm however, well that is a matter of upmost importance!

That can be a deadly thing in the right circumstances. And the last thing we need is democrats to start acting like republicans now.

I don't think that anyone in the republican party, including Trump is able to put out this dumpster fire. It's going to have to roll on with petty spats among extremists holding up things American needs to get done.

 

[USincognito]

I guess that I am almost speechless.

CNN is doing everything it can to get Biden and Democrats re-elected.

Oh you sweet naive thing.

CNN has done an editorial turn to the right over the last few years to try and win Fox viewers. It wasn't working so they brought Chris Licht in and the result was things like Donald's town hall fiasco. They're also the best TV example of "both sides" media. They bend over so far to be balanced they both sides everything often giving the right more credit than the left.

Management also loves Donald. As Les Moonves said, he's bad for America, but he's great for (CBS's ratings). They know he generates views, viewers and clicks so they love to cover him while ignoring most of steady, stable and competent President Biden. Heck, Hunter gets more action on both sides media than Joe.

 

[mark46]

Why can't they happen concurrently then? Why _must_ the border funding go through first here?

It just seems like yet another excuse to let the GOP refuse to hold up their end of the bargain yet again. "Do yet another bill that gives only the GOP what they want, and maybe this time they'll finally do what you want after you've gotten rid of your only leverage." What stops the GOP from saying "sorry suckers", and refusing to pass a later Ukraine aid bill? Why should the Dems trust the GOP? The GOP should be bending over backwards here to try and rebuild trust they've burned.

As an aside, I strong dislike trying to link together concerns about the border with an actual war. They're two separate issues, let's treat them as such

I also would be one of those voters that doesn't care about border security (since it tends to just be "treat migrants worse") but does want aid to Ukraine.

It is obvious that you don't think that there is a crisis at the border that needs jmmediate major help.

The reality is that Democrats have been promising border security measure in trade since Reagan granting amnsesty.
============
American voters are NOT in favor of spending increases for Ukraine without major steps to improve the siuation at the border. Amd that does NOT mean how to get illegal immigrants jobs and housing in New York.

It is what it is.

Of course, we should give lots. lots more aid to Ukraine. But, there also needs to be immediate spending at the border with rgard to security, more judges and the refusal to accept more into the US until there is consideral reduction of the backlog.

 

[mark46]

Oh you sweet naive thing.

CNN has done an editorial turn to the right over the last few years to try and win Fox viewers. It wasn't working so they brought Chris Licht in and the result was things like Donald's town hall fiasco. They're also the best TV example of "both sides" media. They bend over so far to be balanced they both sides everything often giving the right more credit than the left.

Management also loves Donald. As Les Moonves said, he's bad for America, but he's great for (CBS's ratings). They know he generates views, viewers and clicks so they love to cover him while ignoring most of strady, stable and confident President Biden. Heck, Hunter gets more action on both sides media Joe.

ROFL
Don't worry. the left will get to have their chance to try to defeat Biden (through lack of support) and to have their landslide losing candidate in 2028.

 

[FenderTL5]

 

[essentialsaltes]

Knives out! Choose your favorite GOP faction and place your bets.

Lots of people piling on Gaetz, including people willing to 'go there'. Republicans Are So Mad They’re Airing All of Matt Gaetz’s Dirty Laundry

Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-OK): Matt Gaetz Once Called Kristi Noem a ‘Fine B-Word’​

Mullin told CNN on Wednesday the Florida lawmaker “would brag about how he would crush E.D. medicine and chase it with energy drinks so he could go all night.”

<SATIRE>A spokesperson for Rep. Gaetz clarified that Gaetz called Noem a b-word in a sexually objectifying way rather than an insulting way.</SATIRE>

 

[mark46]

House Republicans have a critical decision to make in the next week or so. They need to decide how much power to give to Gaetz. They could even expel him and have another Republican appointed in his place.

 

[Green Sun]

It is obvious that you don't think that there is a crisis at the border that needs jmmediate major help.

The reality is that Democrats have been promising border security measure in trade since Reagan granting amnsesty.
============
American voters are NOT in favor of spending increases for Ukraine without major steps to improve the siuation at the border. Amd that does NOT mean how to get illegal immigrants jobs and housing in New York.

It is what it is.

Of course, we should give lots. lots more aid to Ukraine. But, there also needs to be immediate spending at the border with rgard to security, more judges and the refusal to accept more into the US until there is consideral reduction of the backlog.

Personally, I don't believe "strengthening the border" is the best way to handle the migrant crisis. Helping them is how you help them, not by building walls and kicking them away.

But, again, why does the border funding have to come before the Ukraine funding? You could bundle them both together in a packaged deal that ensures both get passed at the same time. Why must the Dems throw away their leverage so the Republican party can pull the rug out from under them yet again?

Why should the Dems trust that Republicans will allow the Ukraine funding to go through after the Republican party gets their border funding?

Is what I'm asking clear? You stated in your initial post that the border funding must come before the Ukraine funding, I'm asking, "why not do them both at the same time, so that the Democratic party can't get screwed by Republicans refusing to hold their promises yet again?"

In that situation, the people concerned about the border get what they want, and Ukraine gets funding at the same time, in the same bill, with no room for either side of the aisle to back out. Win-win, isn't it?

I really want to know your thoughts on why this isn't an acceptable path forward.

 

[mark46]

Personally, I don't believe "strengthening the border" is the best way to handle the migrant crisis. Helping them is how you help them, not by building walls and kicking them away.

But, again, why does the border funding have to come before the Ukraine funding? You could bundle them both together in a packaged deal that ensures both get passed at the same time. Why must the Dems throw away their leverage so the Republican party can pull the rug out from under them yet again?

Why should the Dems trust that Republicans will allow the Ukraine funding to go through after the Republican party gets their border funding?

Is what I'm asking clear? You stated in your initial post that the border funding must come before the Ukraine funding, I'm asking, "why not do them both at the same time, so that the Democratic party can't get screwed by Republicans refusing to hold their promises yet again?"

In that situation, the people concerned about the border get what they want, and Ukraine gets funding at the same time, in the same bill, with no room for either side of the aisle to back out. Win-win, isn't it?

I really want to know your thoughts on why this isn't an acceptable path forward.

You seem to ignore politiical realities and what voters want and will accept.

60% of Democrats and 96% of republicans want increased border security.

Maybe a Ukraine bill could pass before a border security bill, but it would be small and unpopular with voters. The PRIORITIES for voters are
1) border security, and preventing new immigrants
2) Ukraine
3) quicker processing of those at the border and who have trial dates
4) rapid treatment for the many millions of illegals and immigrants waiting for trial.

My guess is that 60% of voters woul;d support ZERO IMMIGRATION (certainly ZERO asylum seekers entering) until all the above has been dealt with.
=========
Democrats MUST understand that the voters want NO MORE IMMIGRANTS until we have secured the border and processed the existing illegals and asylum seekers.

 

[Pommer]

My guess is that 60% of voters woul;d support ZERO IMMIGRATION (certainly ZERO asylum seekers entering) until all the above has been dealt with.

Our national birth rate is “too low” to sustain overall population growth; we have to have immigration to flood into our country and its labor-starved economy.
The “they’ll take our jobs!”, is both finally true and necessary at this point.

 

[Green Sun]

You seem to ignore politiical realities and what voters want and will accept.

60% of Democrats and 96% of republicans want increased border security.

Maybe a Ukraine bill could pass before a border security bill, but it would be small and unpopular with voters. The PRIORITIES for voters are
1) border security, and preventing new immigrants
2) Ukraine
3) quicker processing of those at the border and who have trial dates
4) rapid treatment for the many millions of illegals and immigrants waiting for trial.

My guess is that 60% of voters woul;d support ZERO IMMIGRATION (certainly ZERO asylum seekers entering) until all the above has been dealt with.
=========
Democrats MUST understand that the voters want NO MORE IMMIGRANTS until we have secured the border and processed the existing illegals and asylum seekers.

Can they be passed at the same time then? I want your opinion on combining them both onto the same bill to ensure that Republicans can't back out. I've asked this, but you haven't given me an answer on a simultaneous measure.

My concern is that Republicans will once again refuse to hold to their word - If the immigration bill passes before the Ukraine Funding bill, Republicans may refuse to table any motion to pass the Ukraine Funding bill

If Republicans once again when back on their word after they got what they want, what would your opinion be? Would you be OK with that?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Lauren Boebert said it would be 'childish, vengeful' for Republicans to remove Matt Gaetz after he led McCarthy's ousting​

Just because removing McCarthy was childish and vengeful, two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[mark46]

Can they be passed at the same time then? I want your opinion on combining them both onto the same bill to ensure that Republicans can't back out. I've asked this, but you haven't given me an answer on a simultaneous measure.

My concern is that Republicans will once again refuse to hold to their word - If the immigration bill passes before the Ukraine Funding bill, Republicans may refuse to table any motion to pass the Ukraine Funding bill

If Republicans once again when back on their word after they got what they want, what would your opinion be? Would you be OK with that?

yes, border security and Ukraine could be put on the same bill.

Unfortunately, border security has been put on compromise bills in the past. The other event happens. Border security is left behind. And, YES, this it is the Democrats that don't follow through on border security, since they don't believe that it is a good idea, certainly not a high priority.
===========
There are two issues. Trust the American people. They very much want border security before additional aid to Ukraine. It is Democrats who continue to oppose border security efforts, holding out for a compromise immigration bill that will never happen.

 

[mark46]

Our national birth rate is “too low” to sustain overall population growth; we have to have immigration to flood into our country and its labor-starved economy.
The “they’ll take our jobs!”, is both finally true and necessary at this point.

You are arguing the merits of immigration policy rather than the politics. I agree that we very much need many more immigrants. We need a system that prioritizes those with needed skills. Many countries have such policies. Everyone should support this.

And yes, we should be providing aid to the countries dealing with terrorism and poverty in our hemisphere.

What is getting in the way politically is border security, and also a need to change the definition of asylum, DACA folks, those currently in the US illegally, and those waiting to be processed (waiting their 5 years for a hearing date).
======================
THE IMMEDIATE NEED
Stop the crisis at the border. Once our annual limit for asylum seekers is met, NO MORE immigrants should be allowed to enter the US accross our Southern border. NONE! When the situation is under control, we can allow LEGAL immigrants to enter under a new immigration policy.

 

[mark46]

Personally, I don't believe "strengthening the border" is the best way to handle the migrant crisis. Helping them is how you help them, not by building walls and kicking them away.

But, again, why does the border funding have to come before the Ukraine funding? You could bundle them both together in a packaged deal that ensures both get passed at the same time. Why must the Dems throw away their leverage so the Republican party can pull the rug out from under them yet again?

Why should the Dems trust that Republicans will allow the Ukraine funding to go through after the Republican party gets their border funding?

Is what I'm asking clear? You stated in your initial post that the border funding must come before the Ukraine funding, I'm asking, "why not do them both at the same time, so that the Democratic party can't get screwed by Republicans refusing to hold their promises yet again?"

In that situation, the people concerned about the border get what they want, and Ukraine gets funding at the same time, in the same bill, with no room for either side of the aisle to back out. Win-win, isn't it?

I really want to know your thoughts on why this isn't an acceptable path forward.

In reality, the times for DEALS regarding border security should be long gone. We need border security, period. Full stop.

The idea that the Democrats will only support border security if they get lots of what they want just continues to increase support for the Republicans. American voters want voter security. It is really that simple.

 

[Green Sun]

yes, border security and Ukraine could be put on the same bill.

Unfortunately, border security has been put on compromise bills in the past. The other event happens. Border security is left behind. And, YES, this it is the Democrats that don't follow through on border security, since they don't believe that it is a good idea, certainly not a high priority.
===========
There are two issues. Trust the American people. They very much want border security before additional aid to Ukraine. It is Democrats who continue to oppose border security efforts, holding out for a compromise immigration bill that will never happen.

Alright, thank you. I'm glad we came to some little agreement here, even if you still dislike a compromise bill, you do agree that there is no practical reason why it can't be done.

I still believe that a compromise bill guaranteeing Ukraine funding would be only acceptable way that border security could be passed. I simply cannot trust the Republican party not to pull a fast one yet again. I obviously do not share the same concerns about border security that you do, and I don't believe I'll ever have the same view, but I'm glad we were able to at least come to some sort of understanding.

I do, unfortunately, fear the opposite of what you have expressed. I do think it is relatively likely that Democrats will end up givingRepublicans what they want, then Republicans will refuse to follow through on Ukraine aid. I hope I am wrong here, and that Democrats will display the resolve necessary to hold Republicans accountable.