Jump to content
  • Playwire Ad Area

Will their serial inability to elect a Speaker cost the GOP The House?


Will their serial inability to elect a Speaker cost the GOP The House?  

4 members have voted

  1. 1. Will their serial inability to elect a Speaker cost the GOP The House?

    • Yes, Republicans lose The House in the next election
      3
    • No, Republicans maintain their House advantage
      1


Recommended Posts

Congressional Republicans seem hell bent on demonstrating their inability to complete the most basic administrative functions of government, never mind competently doing the people's business. Will their teen-like addiction to drama cost them with voters?

Is there and unintended consequence at the ballot box causing moderate voters to walk away from Republican candidates?

  • Fire 1

Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generally this may be true.   As long as there is no speaker, there is no legislating going on.    No legislating is a good thing.   I generally think this way.   But not being able to come together on a speaker is not a good thing.  What is the big deal about speaker?   Just vote them in and get on with it.   Would this drive me to vote D?   No, it would not.  

mspart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some good folks behind this disruption, and I'm cheering for 'em.   I'm not disagreeing with the gist of anyone's posts on this thread thus far, by the way.   Instead I'm happy that folks are taking seriously the importance of electing leaders of the House (etc.) who have a vision that's far better than merely going along to get along.   Republican V.P. candidate Paul Ryan disappointed the heck out of me, and millions of other fiscal conservatives.   He talked a big game and then flip-flopped.   The U.S.A. can't afford more of it.    

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm skeptical of Lauren Boebert's re-election prospects though... and the GOP's lead in the House is already even more thin than her willingness to behave discreetly. 

Boebert.jpg?w=634

  I'm not really referring to her theater behavior, either.   It's the walking out on four kids after the family helped her get where she is  antic that particularly rubs me the wrong way.    And the theater antics admittedly didn't help them or her ex.   

https://www.businessinsider.com/lauren-boebert-adam-frisch-fundraising-millions-colorado-rematch-2023-10

Edited by TitleIX is ripe for reform
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mspart said:

Generally this may be true.   As long as there is no speaker, there is no legislating going on.    No legislating is a good thing.   I generally think this way.   But not being able to come together on a speaker is not a good thing.  What is the big deal about speaker?   Just vote them in and get on with it.   Would this drive me to vote D?   No, it would not.  

mspart

Historically, I have been of the same view. Less action from the government costs me less money.

The new dynamic now, though, is the silliness that is very serious of the debt limit and voting to fund the government. All it does is create unnecessary drama and cost tax payers money. It is all very Dwight Schrute Doomsday Device-y.

 

  • Fire 1

Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Entrepreneurs prefer not to have to keep watching their backs for changing legislation on a weekly basis.  They have enough to worry about.   It's part of why so many have left California (where the state legislature meets year 'round) for states where the state legislature meets just a few months every year, or even every other year (such as Virginia or Texas).   If there's a sudden need for new legislation on something, a special session can be called.   

The lobbying class likes for the legislature always to be in session, though.   Washington D.C.'s chock full of beltway bandits, eager to collude with the Uniparty (as Matt Gaetz calls 'em).   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TitleIX is ripe for reform said:

Entrepreneurs prefer not to have to keep watching their backs for changing legislation on a weekly basis.  They have enough to worry about.   It's part of why so many have left California (where the state legislature meets year 'round) for states where the state legislature meets just a few months every year, or even every other year (such as Virginia or Texas).   If there's a sudden need for new legislation on something, a special session can be called.   

The lobbying class likes for the legislature always to be in session, though.   Washington D.C.'s chock full of beltway bandits, eager to collude with the Uniparty (as Matt Gaetz calls 'em).   

Yes, as history has told us, if you leave the rich and powerful unchecked, they will rain glory and riches on the poors and exploitable.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TitleIX is ripe for reform said:

Entrepreneurs prefer not to have to keep watching their backs for changing legislation on a weekly basis.  They have enough to worry about.   It's part of why so many have left California (where the state legislature meets year 'round) for states where the state legislature meets just a few months every year, or even every other year (such as Virginia or Texas).   If there's a sudden need for new legislation on something, a special session can be called.   

The lobbying class likes for the legislature always to be in session, though.   Washington D.C.'s chock full of beltway bandits, eager to collude with the Uniparty (as Matt Gaetz calls 'em).   

I didn’t say ALL legislation is needed, I said there is always a need. 
 

Totally agree with your second paragraph. 

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

Yes, as history has told us, if you leave the rich and powerful unchecked, they will rain glory and riches on the poors and exploitable.

Courts can help keep others policed year 'round.   So can the media.   So can boycotting groups.   That said, legislatures sometimes let good legislative bills die because time runs out, and it's disappointing.   But nobody's safe when the legislature's in session.   It's relatively good to have time away from that threat so one can focus on being productive.   It's not a perfect system though, admittedly.  

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

There is always a need for legislating and governing.  Times change, people change, things change……democracy changes.  And each day…..shit happens. 
 

Legislating and governing is not automatically synonymous with “big government”

If they legislated and governed appropriately, you are correct.

mspart

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Playwire Ad Area


  • Playwire Ad Area
  • Latest Rankings

  • College Commitments

    Adam Mattin

    Delta, Ohio
    Class of 2025
    Committed to Stanford
    Projected Weight: 125, 133

    Grant Stromberg

    Mukwonago, Wisconsin
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Northern Iowa
    Projected Weight: 285

    Hudson Ward

    Canton, Pennsylvania
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Lock Haven
    Projected Weight: 165

    Alex Reed

    Shikellamy, Pennsylvania
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Lock Haven
    Projected Weight: 125

    Darren Florance

    Harpursville, New York
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Lock Haven
    Projected Weight: 125
  • Playwire Ad Area
×
×
  • Create New...