comment: >
  
  Only problem is most of them taste like shit, because after all you are what you eat!
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. >
  
  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!" >
  
  And this kind of shit is why I really hope he doesn't get it. >
  
  Clown fight! >
  
  o so now tyranny by the minority is a bad thing? >
  
  We would have a better run government if we just picked people at random. >
  
  They can’t even govern 150 people let alone 350 million >
  
  Starting 2023 just the way as planned! Fuck the GOP >
  
  Let them fight. >
  
  Let them fight. >
  
  Yes. Yes. Let the hate flow through you. >
  
  The party of law and order everyone >
  
  It’s the party of chaos and disorder now. >
  
  “Fear is the path to the dark side … fear leads to anger … anger leads to hate … hate leads to suffering.” — Yoda >
  
  It’s comedy in the short term but it’ll likely lead to concessions (committee seats, deals for constituents) that favors some of these 20 so they’ll be rewarded. >
  
  Am l understanding this situation correctly?
  A small group of obstructionists are blocking everyone else from doing needful things?
  Is that it?
  /S
  Loving the irony. 
  Pass the 🍿 please. >
  
  They're a fake party.  Rather, they're multiple parties in a coalition that doesn't work anymore.  
  They need to split up and go into the wilderness for a while.  It's hard to do that, because they know it means losing in '24, and they're all just grifters and bullshitters at heart, trying to keep their jobs.  Most could never get that congressional money and status anywhere else in the world. >
  
  
  They need to split up and go into the wilderness for a while.
  
  Why don't you get a horse and go live in the mountains someplace and don't bother anybody >
  
  Joy ~~Anger~~ rises in me as ~~among~~ U.S. House Republicans ~~as~~ leadership fight drags on >
  
  Time for them to feel some degree of that anger we’ve all been feeling looking at the shitshow that is GOP these days. >
  
  the rule of the house:"a bunch of crazy republicans enter, everybody laughs at them" >
  
  It's like they thought they were still a real party after the first Trump nomination. What a bunch of fools. >
  
  This is one of those situations where having a no confidence vote that dissolves the government should come in but America is so “young and new” that we can’t adopt the same government that thousand year old countries in Europe have. >
  
  The no confidence vote is taken by the legislature against ministers who are elected by said legislative body, not against the legislature. It would be analogous to one of McCarthy's concessions, allowing only 1 representative to bring up a vote for a new speaker.
  But also, I want to point out that the US actually has the oldest functioning written constitution in the world. We didn't get to learn from the mistakes of democracies other than the Roman Republic, Athens, and the mixture of Democracy/Monarchy that the British had. All other current Democracies had our mistakes to learn from. >
  
  Which is why Jefferson wanted the Constitution to be rewritten periodically. We’re the beta test for large-scale democracy; he knew there would be bugs in the program. >
  
  Unfortunately, the biggest bug was the one that led to the two party system and complete gridlock. >
  
  That’s just the FPTP voting system, which isn’t mandated in the Constitution. That can be rectified with simple legislation. The trick is going to be getting the people who write legislation to weaken their own power by pushing through a different voting system. >
  
  I have fresh popcorn! >
  
  Is it salty? I love salty popcorn... >
  
  And butter, lots of butter! >
  
  Awwww…They big mad >
  
  So as usual then? Perpetual seething? >
  
  They should just pull themselves up by their boot straps and get to work. >
  
  "Our monster is eating us!" Go figure. >
  
  How much you want to bet these 20 rogue republicans start to float Trumps name pretty soon. >
  
  They all ready have. >
  
  Trump wants the Speaker position. It might keep him out of jail and he will be in line to be president. >
  
  You know that game when your big brother grabs your wrist and says don’t hit yourself and then proceeds to use your limb to punch your face repeatedly? The GOP just can’t stop playing it they love it. But it’s weird because they are the big brother and the victim. >
  
  It's like that meme of the kid with the boot on his hand stomping on his own head. >
  
  Among Us >
  
  Are they going to execute 10,000 atheists a day until they can figure it out while blaming women for their problems? >
  
  Generally speaking the GOP has been extremely reluctant to tamp down on the conservative crazy train. Now they’re reaping what they’ve sown and dragging the rest of us down with them. >
  
  
  "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.
  
  Damn imagine being at the mercy of a minority who won't sit down and play nice >
  
  The GOP sucks. >
  
  they cant agree on anything. >
  
  It's fun to shit on republicans and they deserve every bit of it.
  This being said
  The idea in the constitution that there can only be 2 groups is holding you guys back in so many ways
  In most other democracies there is more than 2 parties and they often have to negotiate between them to get to a majority BUT there can be several groups that are a minority
  The republicans would likely be in a much better place if they had not included trump when they all hated him and if he had to show up as a third party
  Even if he won he would have had to work with the republicans and they would have had power over him to temper his crazy, same for the Dems where they would have to work with the likes of Bernie
  And a 3rd big party would likely form in the centre that would have to work with either side to advance their agenda and sort of keep everyone in check (this is failing in most of Europe at the moment though so...)
  Anyway I thought that there may be some thing to be said about that too, but laughing at them loosing repededly because of their own stupidity is just fine too >
  
  The Constitution doesn’t say anything about political parties and I believe many of the Founding Fathers were concerned about parties becoming a thing. >
  
  There is mention of a majority leader, and minority leader ? Not sure about the second
  Either way it lead to this bipartite getup >
  
  The Constitution only mentions a "Speaker of the House".
  The "majority leader" and "minority leader" are a product of rules that aren't part of the Constitution. >
  
  Part of it is they hate McCarthy and want to humiliate him. But IMHO another big part of it is they watched Joe Manchin get his ass kissed by Dems on literally every vote and want that for themselves. It's a great way for an unimportant state like WV to get a constant spotlight. That media attention will likely help them get re-elected too. It's terrible for their party but they could care less. >
  
  Good, let the hate flow through you >
  
  Embrace Fascists and this is what you get. >
  
  Mad enough to do something about it? No? OK. :-( >
  
  Oh!  Only US House Repubs are angry?   Are they?   Really?   Oh, I'm so sorry for them.
  I feel for them.  I really, really do.
  It's not like the country's business is on hold or anything, that national security is not being overseen, that we have NO representatives working for Vets, seniors,etc, throughout the entire country or anything.
  Right Repubs?   You feel as sorry for House Repubs like I do?  Do ya? >
  
  They won’t pass ANYTHING for the common person anyways. It will all be more tax codes for the rich and oh yeah we still need to find that laptop don’t we!?
  I hope they fuck this up for 2 years. Fuck em! >
  
  This kind of polarization is not healthy—not for our government, but our country and its citizens. I'm not saying Rs aren't mostly corrupt, but the loudest fascist ones causing chaos and getting so much press makes things more dangerous for everybody. 
  It makes some people more likely to be violent. It spreads disinformation, hate, and destroys dynamics in our families. I hope our government (including the very few in the R party with the power and knowledge to stop this) finally get something going to self-correct this shitshow. >
  
  Don't get angry, Republicans. Just vote for Jeffries or cut a deal. >
  
  Just one republican should vote for a Democrat and see how quickly they get their act together. >
  
  A dying fish will flop a few times.  
  The rubpublican party is doing the dying fish dance without the fiddle. >
  
  Now would be a good time for a third party to jump in and form a coalition made from the center of both left and right. Shed the extreme elements of both sides and actually work together to get things done. Congress is supposed to function by working things out between representatives with varying interests, not by setting a goal of simply obstructing whoever's party is in the white house. Call it the Overton party. >
  
  You would have to shed the whole republican party to get rid of the extreme right. There is nothing of value in a centrist party. It just incentivizes people to move to extremely fringe positions to move the middle.
  The parties should have consistent and clearly defined ideologies that win or lose on their own merit. 3rd way politics got us into this mess. >
  
  This is gonna drag out until the 13th huh. >
  
  Stay mad >
  
  Anger should be rising among ALL Americans. >
  
  "But I didn't think the leopards would eat MY face!" >
  
  We choose our hypocrisy,
  Like we choose our voters
  With malice of forethought >
  
  God dammit I hope they fight each other on the house floor. Pls pls pls let the reds hurt each other in their own confusion >
  
  The hold outs will probably fall in line eventually. They probably want to see Kevin squirm or grovel a bit. >
  
  These are the completely predictable results of when a political party actively recruits the most antagonistic, paranoid, conspiracy minded, narcissistic members of society into their ranks… Big surprise!!! GQP cannot cooperate, even within their own tribe. >
  
  Really?  Just among house republicans? Because of course!  We don’t count, silly me >
  
  absolutely love watching the GOP eat each other alive