comment: >
  
  He believes he's entitled to it. Has for a long time. "I want her to hand me the gavel. It'll be hard not to hit her with it!"
context: I have noticed that Anger is republicans starting point.  It is their default setting. >
  
  You can also predict someone's political party be looking at a MRI of their brain and noting the size of the amygdala... >
  
  Hey! I have a very large amygdala AND I NEVER GET ANGRY YOU M*^}{%]> F):!5&8(. >
  
  Pssst. I got your amygdala s right here.  I got yuge ones for sale. People say they're the biggest.  Believe me when I tell you how hugh-mongous they are.  
  Got whatever color you want. Neon? You got it. Strawberry? Got that too. >
  
  
  Members of the opposition say they are concerned McCarthy would not pursue the scorched-earth tactics they want to take to counter Democratic President Joe Biden and the Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate. 
  "Is he going to fight for us? Is he willing to shut the government down? His history has not been that." - Republican Rep. Ralph Norman
  
  WTF. Straight up a Republican saying that shutting down the government is a viable way to do his job and that it’s expected. 
  
  "It could go into the weekend. We hope it doesn't, but it could," Republican Rep. Scott Perry who opposes McCarthy.
  
  Politicians hate working weekends. I would be kinda surprised if this isn’t wrapped up on Friday. If it goes into overtime this is going to be epic bad press. Mmmm, tasty. >
  
  
  Rep. Ralph Norman
  Rep. Scott Perry
  
  These titles are wrong.  There are currently no members of the House of Representative. >
  
  Wonder if there are any interesting legal protections against investigations or law immunities specifically for congresspeople that they currently enjoy that go away in this period. >
  
  Tomorrow is the anniversary of 1/6 after all, and there are no metal detectors in the building anymore >
  
  That wasn’t what I was insinuating.  More that they wrote laws to help themselves and I don’t know if they apply currently. >
  
  
  He was joined by 17 other Republicans who expressed similar views, with Representative John James accusing the 20 holdouts of "governing on fear."
  
  Pot meet kettle. >
  
  What an absolutely rich statement coming from a republican. >
  
  it's funny to me because fear/anger are really the only thing they have, since there are no actual policy positions
  so they're trying to use the only tools they have, fear/anger, but it's on their own party that also only has those to use >
  
  Aww.
  Sending thoughts an' prayers. >
  
  Subtract the prayers and I'm right there with you.
  The Republican Party has bent themselves over backwards for these extreme MAGAdittoheads and now they're getting fucked in the ass without lube.
  It couldn't happen to more deserving people.
  But in all seriousness, how much of their political operation exists solely for the purpose of making people on both sides of the aisle angry? Did they never hear the parable of the two wolves?
  It really is hard for me to decide whether this is more leopardsatemyface or selfawarewolves material. >
  
  Scratch both thoughts and prayers, sending my continuous laughter >
  
  scratch all three thought and prayers and laughter. im sending a middle finger. and then laughter >
  
  All this schadenfreude is not a fair trade for an actual functioning legislative body. >
  
  Not like McCarthy would do anything besides investigate Hunter Bidens dick >
  
  My point exactly. >
  
  such a pun master... there is no award for pun master? >
  
  You can't make this shit up. The republicans are incredulous that their power to govern is hampered by a loud minority of members. 
  Welcome to the club folks. >
  
  I think it's a testament to the fact that the republican mission is flailing.  Roe is like the dog catching the car, not knowing what to do afterwards and  then being run over by the car.  Now they have nothing to fight for.   Wait,  impeach Biden for being old,  skewer Clinton for benghazi, and get hunter's laptop, all very important goals. 
  Pure comedy. >
  
  They also scream about inflation when all of their corporations got government bailouts. fuel prices are down so that screaming point is over too. Now they are avoiding talk about raising wages which will piss off blue collar republicans. >
  
  Then they also scream against student loan forgiveness or anything that remotely helps it despite accepting PPP loans with open arms. >
  
  Dr. Frankensteins complaining about the monster they created. >
  
  Yup, they are beholden to a very fickle and insane monster of their own creation. >
  
  It's just like that movie. The one with the cloned dinosaurs on the bus that couldn't slow down. >
  
  Dino Bus >
  
  Republicans getting a taste of what it’s like dealing with republicans >
  
  What even more hilarious sort is fox news fucking with the holdouts and giving them shit.   Hannity angry at replubliturds so refreshing. >
  
  Well that’s just the optics Fox News needs to appear “fair and balanced,” so they can go back to smearing shit on the walls and calling it “entertainment news assemblage.” >
  
  Murdoch seems to genuinely be hedging his bets. Fucker Carlson is supporting the rebels, Hannity and the NY Post are supporting McCarthy. All of them ultimately just do what Rupert tells them. >
  
  They courted these extremists, now they are reaping what they sowed. >
  
  The find out stage. >
  
  You have 20 people demanding that 201 surrender to them unconditionally. Well, I am not going to surrender," Republican Representative Trent Kelly told reporters after a late Wednesday vote rejecting McCarthy.
  Listen dumbass, when McCarthy agreed to a motion to reconsider needing only 5 votes, 5 votes to call a full vote to remove the speaker he already surrendered to the QOP terrorists that don't believe in government and are just cosplay performers. >
  
  I hope he loses even more votes after these concessions. >
  
  I hope he loses those votes to Jeffries. >
  
  There just needs to be 6 R reps to give their votes to him for Jeffries to win right? >
  
  Think so, Jeffries has gotten 212 on every vote. >
  
  First, because someone should say it….none of this is good. Good left the party a while ago.
  That being said, is it possible to overdose on shadenfreude? I’m starting to worry about my health….
  I knew, like most of you the moment the Republicans won the majority nothing good would come of it. Nothing is arguably better than bad though, right?
  Every day this continues is another day without reprisal investigations/impeachments. It’s another day without stunt votes designed to put Democrats on the wrong side of populist nonsense issues like English as the national language and enforced Christianity in public schools. It’s another day the base can’t be ginned up on rage based on fantasy.
  The Fox people are referring to it as a circus. The “liberal” media (you know, the ones owned by billion dollar conglomerates) don’t know how to behave since there’s no “both sides” that can be spun from this….and Americans….even the non-political ones all have a front row seat. My completely apolitical mother has been asking me questions about what’s happening and shaking her head at the answers.
  Maybe that’s the good. >
  
  Having schadenfreude about this is great in the short term but in the longer term it's kind of like being happy your limb with cancer now is infected with MRSA.  "Haha, fuck you cancer, how do you like that?  Oh wait" >
  
  If only we could amputate…)
  The GOP has clearly learned nothing from the last 3 election cycles. Eventually, be it tomorrow or in 20 years they will and they will moderate and clean up their own house…..or not, and go the way of the Whigs with something else forming to fill the vacuum. Until then all we can really hope for is the preservation of something resembling a democracy….the things that actually did get done these last two years is nothing short of miraculous. >
  
  Your friendly reminder that Dems had the exact same majority, 222-213, after 2020.  They elected Pelosi as Speaker with no drama, and had one of the most productive Congresses of the millenium.
  Competence matters.  r/VoteDEM >
  
  
  "You have 20 people demanding that 201 surrender to them unconditionally."
  
  Manchin/Sinema-chef-kiss.png >
  
  The Supreme Court has 6 people having 350 million surrender to them. >
  
  Leadership fights aren't necessarily a bad thing, such as when a party is choosing between multiple candidates or competing visions. Such fights could demonstrate a robust exchange of ideas and approaches to governance.
  However, the GOP fight is none of that. There is no competition of ideas or approaches. There are no competing visions or candidates. Rather, the entire spectacle is simply a bunch of anti-establishment radicals getting their rocks off by saying no.  They revel in chaos, they revel in lack of governance, and they revel in lack of progress.
  The GOP has turned from being the party of conservatives to the party of anti-establishment radicals. >
  
  I have this (argument, discussion, disagreement) with my (smart, accomplished, otherwise totally admirable) father in law quite often.  As I see it, the reaction of the GOP here is that of post-Obama Era conservatism.  It's the conclusion of losing a fight that began with The New Deal; how could any reaction but anger or sad resignation (Ala the David Brooks urbane conservative) not be the natural reaction?
  What are the things that the traditional conservative party trying to conserve?  When they feel (not based on evidence but vibes, like any other political party wholly based on preserving the values and ethos of a perceived moment in time) that they have lost this ground, forever, isn't the natural reaction to salt the fields out of spite?
  I mean, of course I disagree with them, of course I prefer the older conservative model that's willing to compromise towards the direction of the world as it is; but this pack of raving hyenas doesn't feel like a betrayal of "conservative values" it feels like it's final stage.
  Ug, which all sounds like an angry and self-righteous rant, which wasn't my intent. Just.. help me out here.  What are the conservatives trying to conserve?  How is it that different in matters of policy from what these people want? >
  
  
  What are the conservatives trying to conserve? 
  
  I think this is the most important fundamental question that few ever bother considering. 
  To me Conservatives only conserve one thing, and that is the power of whoever or whatever is currently the most powerful. 
  If you keep this in mind a lot of the seeming contradictions make sense. Like how we went from the red scare to conservatives openly backing Putin despite very little political currency in it. Or how it's the Tories that routinely break convention and without even a blink. 
  They are almost by definition incapable of progressive thinking (that is thinking about the future big picture results of their actions not being politically Progressive) probably because they think 'everyone is like me and would have done the same thing anyway, I'll just do this and now things will remain this way forever'. 
  Modern conservatism (In the west as it was the most powerful in the modern era) has now essentially handed over the keys of our democracy to 'whoever has the most money/capital' when this was done a certain few of very particular demographics were supreme and naturally it was more or less implicitly assumed that it would remain that way forever. 
  However one main consequence of this type of ruthless power keeping dynamic was what we call today globalism. Of course since it's beginnings a lot has changed in terms of what people and groups have the most money/power but our democracy remains up for sale to the highest bidder.
  Power is now in the hands of transnational bodies and handfuls of individuals with no particular allegiance and so the old national democratic systems are becoming obsolete, and all of this political weirdness, breaking norms, disregard for truth is us coming to terms with that. >
  
  
  
  It's not like there are not conservatives who practice good policy, who care about institutions, and who have positive ideas (some of which I think are very dumb, some of which I agree with despite being a Warren progressive).
  
  
  Doesn't your answer sound to neat to you?  Doesn't it inspire too much confidence in your side oppoing them? (whether that side be anything center left to anarchist)  I mean, I can see what led you to this answer, I gave many of the same thoughts.  But don't you find it suspicious to simply cast them as villains for a reason that's so cardboard and banal?  I just find it too easy, and far too forgiving of the flaws in my own reasoning.
  
  
  I don't immediately disagree with you, but it smacks of an answer that is, as Mencken would put; "clear, simple, and wrong". >
  
  
  Yes of course but when if one has no real underlying ethos those people over time will get pushed out selecting those leaning further and further conservative-ward, when there is no other political way of pushing back. This is just the best simplest explanation of what we are seeing now. If conservatism is constrained it can be useful, say if changes are happening too fast, but it tends to try to take over is all I'm saying, in part because people fail to understand it. 
  
  
  But don't you find it suspicious to simply cast them as villains for a reason that's so cardboard and banal?
  
  I think banal is good here. We all expecting Machiavelli... but over the last few years it's quite clear that reality is often just simple and bland and dumb so so dumb. And OK yes I do like that quote it's very cynical and edgy I get it but can't you apply anywhere really? Except often there are simple solutions to highly complex problems, so ironically his quote kind of justifies itself in being overly simplistic or at least incomplete... So I'll raise you Freud's "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" with an Occam's razor to cut it with...  So stick that in your pipe and smoke it!
  But being serious, at some point you just need to have an opinion and not simply say oh this is too complex and leave it there, let's just work around the edges, again I don't say this idly but because this is the position that the opposition to conservatism has generally taken and it simply has not worked well at all. 
  That being said I don't think any of these people are mustache twirling evil they are just doing the easiest thing to gain power, again simple boring parsimony but yes at some point ignorance especially when collected can become indistinguishable from evil and that is up to the individual to judge.
  Though yes I do believe we need to oppose the whole idea of conservatism, not people in particular as they are a dime a dozen. I think part of the appeal of conservative rhetoric is that is is simple and they have a common enemy. Where they fail that this is often at odds with reality and constantly shifts. Anybody who doesn't like how things are going now has the advantage of all the evidence of exactly how conservatism has failed, so we mustname it often and loud. >
  
  Ehhhh... Ok, that is a fair criticism of me pulling a quote just to pull it and just kind of be pretentious, so you've got me there =D
  But getting back to the topic, is that all conservatism really exists to do, as like an ethos; to push back against (for lack of a less usable term) left of center policies?  I mean "the left" as an organizing principle has a ton of different, often conflicting theories and policy practices that have a healthy, productive debate.  But when that's compared against conservative ..thought.. all that seems to be there is a refusal to understand society through an institutional lens.  Like, the only uniting force of "conservativism" seems to be individual good and society bad.
  I do appreciate your reply, but I think now this prolly wasn't a really helpful comment for me to make on Reddit (or maybe just not on this topic).  There doesn't seem to be anyone around to explain what these people are working to accomplish that isn't linked to some cuckoo conspiracy or a flat denial that the world is different and what we need to expect from our government is different. >
  
  Even funnier with Rep. Kat Cammack starting a hunger strike to get McCarthy elected. And the Boebert continued with now wanting drump for it. 
  All of this and these idiots are running the country. >
  
  Have you seen Rep Cammack?
  A hunger strike isn't going to hurt her, hell, that woman could go into hibernation. >
  
  Brumation. >
  
  For they that sleep with dogs, shall rise with fleas. >
  
  All they know how to do is be obstructionists, even when it’s their own. >
  
  They eat their own children...  with ketchup... >
  
  Catsup is a liberal abomination, though. >
  
  Elect clowns. 
  Get a circus. >
  
  No. The US does not have an extreme left wing. Stop believing that shit. It isn’t true. Demonstrably. >
  
  You know who else is mad?  The American people over this fucking shitty political system/climate we live in. >
  
  but the people don't count or matter, they are just a means to an end -> getting into and staying power. >
  
  The republicans are so disorganized and ill disciplined that the democrats only have to hold the line and wait this out.  Eventually enough lunatics will wander off the floor that a vote electing Jefferies will succeed.  Of course then the Rs will claim the election was stolen, but it will be their own damn fault. >
  
  Why he doesn't just accept he won't get it is beyond me. Plus their current talking points about the taliban and such aren't helping much either.