Well it appears that I have an unpopular opinion (again), but it seems to me that it makes some sense. Formerly, it would take only one GOP congress-critter to start a recall of the Speaker, and we've seen how many lone wolf RINOs there are. Would we really want to give such power to a sole member like (insert your favorite RINO here)?
Changing the rule to require nine members to start a recall will avoid a lot of chaos that a lone RINO could cause.
Total agreement. Knowing the Dems were upset about this rules change speaks volumes. They want the Republicans to be in turmoil because it will slow down the implementation of President Trump’s MAGA agenda.
None of us know what a Johnson Speakership looks like with President Trump sitting in the Oval Office. And, we can rest assured that if President Trump wants Johnson gone it will be no problem to get more than enough Republicans to sponsor a vacate the chair motion.
It seems difficult for some to grasp that we just saw two months of what a Johnson speakership would look like with Trump in the Oval Office setting up the next two years... and yet some anons really believe Johnson would be hanging out with Trump and then genuinely going off and being a RINO... as if everyone there, Johnson included, are oblivious to Trumps influence and the authority he weilds and aren't going to respect that... how do frens here not see this?
The prior rules for tossing him were extremely generous.
I think Johnson plays the game better than some realize. People like Massie are not a problem for him. They are useful buffers and cudgels.
We need to realize that Johnson wasn't negotiating that mega-budget with a Republican Senate and President. He had to come up with something that Schumer and Biden would agree to. The Musk-led outcry during the voting process was just what the country needed to rapidly slam on the brakes, create something better with everyone's attention on it, and reverse-uno the emergency budget back onto the Senate and Biden.
With hindsight it was likely the plan all along, with Johnson low-key doing his part.
True. And never forget, when thinking of Congress and why they do such incomprehensible things, that there is a cynical thing at work called "the power of no" or alternately, "there is no power in yes."
It goes like this... if a congress-critter says yes to something on its first offering, there is no power in that. However, a "no" can get you all kinds of leveraging power, the chance to negotiate your vote for something of value, say a new library in your district with (gasp!) your name on it. So the "no" is traded now for a "yes" and a transaction has been made.
There is no power in "yes" but there's lots of power in "no"....at least to a limited degree. To the less principled critters, this is the cynical way Congress operates and has for a long time.
Sometimes true, but the counterpoint would be what happened between AOC and Gerry Connolly. Connolly was the consistent "yes" vote for however many decades. AOC opened her wings to fly and shout "no" to party leadership--which has value to the public--but had no value in the fetid halls of the swamp.
Connolly's dutiful yes votes allowed him to chair a committee in the later years of his filthy career in the swamp.
Well, the "power of no" is simply one tool in a toolbox of grift and mendacity, not to be used often or unadvisedly, but it can come in handy occasionally. I suspect that over the last 60 years, that little tool has been used more than anyone might suspect.
I don't like Johnson as I've stated quite a number of times, but I can't deny that he plays the game pretty well.
I also don't necessarily disagree with the rule change in spirit. It can be a major distraction from actually doing their job if there's just a constant looming removal over their head.
Not that Congress creatures do their job anyway but still.
Because Johnson was thrust into the Speakership, Trump and Musk aware of this, needed to prepare the Speaker for his valuable position as expertise in the Constitution. He was given a VERY rude 'awakening' that made him aware that Gaetz was waiting in Trump's 'Bullpen'. IMOP
Thanks. Dual meanings, as you have obviously figured out. It's my favorite range plinker. Easily holds a 2-3" pattern at 30' unless there's a little too much coffee involved.
Now I'm wondering if you were saying you have a couple of 45acp unloaders, or 45 Colt revolvers. Either way, I like both, but the 1911 doesn't get as much love lately - been favoring the 10mm. I shoot it slightly better and figure it's going to be my go-to invasion stopper.
Yea, you have a good arguement, but I just don't like change like this at moments like this. It smells of something, ya know? Why didn't they pursue this action six months ago? Heck, even ten years ago? Why right now??? Maybe this is a Q play and we need a little time to see how it will play out. Maybe Johnson is a placeholder until Jan 20 and then Trump will put his own Speaker in that position and the left will really go nuts with that choice. hehe
Well I'm not saying that it's all roses and teacakes, there may be other agendas at work. We all know that power tends to aggregate more power unto itself, and tries to secure itself as best it can, so there's no surprise there. Still, I'm willing to wait and see how this plays out.
Trump wants Johnson. I believe he has his reasons and I trust Trump. If I trust trust Trump, then I trust once in office, Johnson will do what is needed. Until then, Johnson can appear terribly loyal and did what he needed until Jan 20. Now it's harder to get Johnson ousted when the establishment sees him full blown MAGA.
Well it appears that I have an unpopular opinion (again), but it seems to me that it makes some sense. Formerly, it would take only one GOP congress-critter to start a recall of the Speaker, and we've seen how many lone wolf RINOs there are. Would we really want to give such power to a sole member like (insert your favorite RINO here)?
Changing the rule to require nine members to start a recall will avoid a lot of chaos that a lone RINO could cause.
IMHO.
Total agreement. Knowing the Dems were upset about this rules change speaks volumes. They want the Republicans to be in turmoil because it will slow down the implementation of President Trump’s MAGA agenda.
None of us know what a Johnson Speakership looks like with President Trump sitting in the Oval Office. And, we can rest assured that if President Trump wants Johnson gone it will be no problem to get more than enough Republicans to sponsor a vacate the chair motion.
It seems difficult for some to grasp that we just saw two months of what a Johnson speakership would look like with Trump in the Oval Office setting up the next two years... and yet some anons really believe Johnson would be hanging out with Trump and then genuinely going off and being a RINO... as if everyone there, Johnson included, are oblivious to Trumps influence and the authority he weilds and aren't going to respect that... how do frens here not see this?
Thinking emotionally, not logically.
Indeed. I trust Trump
bingo
The prior rules for tossing him were extremely generous.
I think Johnson plays the game better than some realize. People like Massie are not a problem for him. They are useful buffers and cudgels.
We need to realize that Johnson wasn't negotiating that mega-budget with a Republican Senate and President. He had to come up with something that Schumer and Biden would agree to. The Musk-led outcry during the voting process was just what the country needed to rapidly slam on the brakes, create something better with everyone's attention on it, and reverse-uno the emergency budget back onto the Senate and Biden.
With hindsight it was likely the plan all along, with Johnson low-key doing his part.
True. And never forget, when thinking of Congress and why they do such incomprehensible things, that there is a cynical thing at work called "the power of no" or alternately, "there is no power in yes."
It goes like this... if a congress-critter says yes to something on its first offering, there is no power in that. However, a "no" can get you all kinds of leveraging power, the chance to negotiate your vote for something of value, say a new library in your district with (gasp!) your name on it. So the "no" is traded now for a "yes" and a transaction has been made.
There is no power in "yes" but there's lots of power in "no"....at least to a limited degree. To the less principled critters, this is the cynical way Congress operates and has for a long time.
Sometimes true, but the counterpoint would be what happened between AOC and Gerry Connolly. Connolly was the consistent "yes" vote for however many decades. AOC opened her wings to fly and shout "no" to party leadership--which has value to the public--but had no value in the fetid halls of the swamp.
Connolly's dutiful yes votes allowed him to chair a committee in the later years of his filthy career in the swamp.
Well, the "power of no" is simply one tool in a toolbox of grift and mendacity, not to be used often or unadvisedly, but it can come in handy occasionally. I suspect that over the last 60 years, that little tool has been used more than anyone might suspect.
And Connolly is one of the filthiest of the filthy infesting the swamp.
Where’s that Ron Paul library?
I want to visit that one!!!
I don't like Johnson as I've stated quite a number of times, but I can't deny that he plays the game pretty well.
I also don't necessarily disagree with the rule change in spirit. It can be a major distraction from actually doing their job if there's just a constant looming removal over their head.
Not that Congress creatures do their job anyway but still.
Because Johnson was thrust into the Speakership, Trump and Musk aware of this, needed to prepare the Speaker for his valuable position as expertise in the Constitution. He was given a VERY rude 'awakening' that made him aware that Gaetz was waiting in Trump's 'Bullpen'. IMOP
That 1 person recall rule was ridiculous - the House version of a red flag law, which also needs fixing.
Love your screen name, I happen to have a couple of those, one is Vietnam-era vintage.
Thanks. Dual meanings, as you have obviously figured out. It's my favorite range plinker. Easily holds a 2-3" pattern at 30' unless there's a little too much coffee involved.
Nice. My only complaint with the 1911 is that Browning didn't make it double-action, like he did the Browning Hi-Power 9mm.
Now I'm wondering if you were saying you have a couple of 45acp unloaders, or 45 Colt revolvers. Either way, I like both, but the 1911 doesn't get as much love lately - been favoring the 10mm. I shoot it slightly better and figure it's going to be my go-to invasion stopper.
Oh I was talking (and thinking) 1911 45ACP all along. As in Government Model 1911.
Makes sense acp - Automatic Colt Pistol. Some people call it the 45 Colt 45 Long Colt, but it's really the same thing.
Yea, you have a good arguement, but I just don't like change like this at moments like this. It smells of something, ya know? Why didn't they pursue this action six months ago? Heck, even ten years ago? Why right now??? Maybe this is a Q play and we need a little time to see how it will play out. Maybe Johnson is a placeholder until Jan 20 and then Trump will put his own Speaker in that position and the left will really go nuts with that choice. hehe
Well I'm not saying that it's all roses and teacakes, there may be other agendas at work. We all know that power tends to aggregate more power unto itself, and tries to secure itself as best it can, so there's no surprise there. Still, I'm willing to wait and see how this plays out.
The warning banner at the top of the page is a little bit weird, isn't it?
Strange
Would explain why Disqus is censoring more of my comments than usual, but not on Breitbart.
Well of course the speaker has a really stinky dossier, so there will always be that to rid him from our path.
Trump wants Johnson. I believe he has his reasons and I trust Trump. If I trust trust Trump, then I trust once in office, Johnson will do what is needed. Until then, Johnson can appear terribly loyal and did what he needed until Jan 20. Now it's harder to get Johnson ousted when the establishment sees him full blown MAGA.
5D chess.
What did McCarthy get us again?
Johnson. Again, not a fan of him but I trust Trump.
POTUS (the real one) stated he backed Johnson. So I'm good with him being SOTH. I can't and won't pretend to know "the Plan" but I trust POTUS.
Be wary whenever the government operates nearly unanimously about something.
Ghey. Super ghey. No, mega ghey. I don't think this ends well for either side, [DS] or MAGA.
If anyone changes rules to make it more difficult to remove them from office; I can guarantee that it is NEVER done for your benefit
Johnson is Trump's choice, for now. Q said there will be arrests and resignations from Congress. When that time comes, we can elect a better speaker.
Couldn't find the rules updated on the Rules Committee site, but found this that has the PDF being considered...
https://docs.house.gov/floor/