>

They should’ve let them keep voting like the last time before the civil war and let the “revolution” happen.  Then we would get to see a real world example of what the right to bear arms does against the U.S. military, but I don’t think the Right would enjoy the outcome.  What would happen would probably look like what should have been outcome on 1/6, instead of only 1 deceased.
I don’t believe that any meaningful legislation will get passed because if it does that means it passes through the Senate. If it has a chance to pass the Senate McCarthy didn’t go far enough to the right. Then with the new rules only one member of congress can call a confidence vote to boot McCarthy. With the holdouts not putting forward an actual candidate and just wanting to screw McCarthy for personal gain, expect that with every bill, every rule, every committee. McCarthy sold his soul and his shoes to become speaker, but in the end the only thing he has is the title, he is a prisoner of the far right. And I don’t think anything will get done beside vendetta investigations and cherry picked evidence, which ( in my opinion ) might actually help the Democrats in 2024 when the public sees that the Republicans don’t want to legislate
Edit: I wanted to thank everyone who commented and who I replied to for engaging in a wonderful conversation. It has been a long time since I had a legitimate discussion with multiple points of views where no one attacked each other personally. When I joined this subreddit I was scared to comment or post anything out of fear but everyone in this discussion has made me more confident to share my opinion >

I think you summed it up well. We’re looking at two years of hearing about Hunter Biden’s laptop >

Don't forget impeachment after impeachment out of spite. >

It won’t be simply out of spite. It will be used as a defense for Trumps actions and to make impeachment less appealing to the public in the future. It’s essentially completing their projection.
They falsely claimed Trump was impeached purely for political reason. Then they’ll impeach Biden over nothing but political reasons. Then, when Democrats say “this is purely political”, they’ll try to “both sides” the issue. Republican mouth breathers will keep spam “Its (D)ifferent” because Republicans are generally too stupid to realize that there actually are differences. >

Yup, it’ll be a complete mess. Dems and leftists in general will have to say “this is a political witch hunt,” which is exactly what the right wants them to say. Then they can screech about hypocrisy and all that. But if the Rs actually go through with trying to impeach Biden, it genuinely will be purely political and out of spite. Unfortunately the headlines and talking heads will have a field day with calling Dems hypocrites. >

Exactly. Which, while I don’t want to be rude, is only possible because the people that support the GOP are incredibly stupid and/or knowingly acting in bad faith. If their supporters were mildly intelligent or honest they wouldn’t be able to successfully use that strategy >

Ehh.. I wouldn't say that's the only reason. Dems persued Trump for Russiagate for so long, ignoring provable crimes like all the money he was taking before and after the election from foreign governments (directly buying policy see; Israel embassy shift, Yemen vetos etc). 
I would say Dems kinda have it coming. To clarify, I'm meaning the inability to defend without getting labelled as hypocritical, not the impeachment claims itself, they will likely be petty and irrelevant. >

Nothing you’re saying makes sense though. The investigation into the very real Russian interference in our elections was made while the Republican Donald Trump was in office. The Republican Attorney General Jeff Sessions hired the Republican Robert Mueller to lead the investigation.
Calling it “Democrats” is just either a lie or a moronic statement made out of pure ignorance of the facts. Not only that, but that’s entirely irrelevant to the two impeachments.
I can certainly appreciate the clever attempt at “both sides” but when the facts don’t agree with your false claims it just makes you look foolish. >

You need to come back to reality buddy >

M’kay sweetie.
When you’re ready to come to the adults table and talk like a normal person you can try to enter the conversation again. >

Since the five holdouts and the Freedom Caucus extracted the concession where one member can call for a vote of no confidence, McCarthy is hobbled and he'll never be able to work with the Democrats.  The reason is the extreme wing of the Republicans consider compromise is criminal and any legislation with the Democrats is treason. 
If McCarthy tried, they'd call to vote him out. >

What does this vote of no confidence mean?    
For instance, could a bill come to the floor that some GOP type doesn't like.  This GOP person could trigger this no confidence mechanism and thus they are back to electing a new speaker?
I heard that these rules can't be rescinded in this session-- meaning that if a new GOP speaker is identified, they would still need to live with these existing rules plus any more they agreed to.
Could a Dem also leverage this single person no confidence mechanism or..? >


I heard that these rules can't be rescinded in this session

I don't know the laws/rules but I do know that outside of a very tiny number of things (like impeachment), the Constitution gives each chamber full authority to decide for themselves how to govern themselves. So I'd think that a majority could decide the rules about making rules. >

True, they can change the rules mid session, but that would mean either the maga holdouts fall in line, or Dems cross the isle.  
Dems gain nothing for bailing out McCarthy, and what are the odds the maga crown comes to reason? >


Dems gain nothing for bailing out McCarthy

Don't they keep the MAGA crowd from being able to have power if they bail him out? >

If McCarthy was in any way sane or serious, maybe.  Boehner was an ideologue obstructionist willing to put party above country, but he was also an institutionalist who worked his way through the party.  
Ryan was to the right of him.  But still a technocrat, or at least he wanted to be.  
McCarthy is two steps out from Boehner who was already too far out to trust.  
If the candidate for speaker didn't vote to impeach trump they are beyond trustworthy. That's like 3 reps at this point. >

There is absolutely no chance that his caucus  allows him to do anything that would pass the Senate. We are at the point where they’re probably going to shut down the government multiple times and cost American taxpayers billions of dollars and threaten global prosperity and security. 
The leadership of China and Putin are both laughing with joy at what Republicans are about to do.
Kevin McCarthy’s humiliation has just started and the woman who needed four attempt to complete her GED and an obvious pedophile will led the charge to humiliate him over and over and over again. >

One real concern is the federal debt ceiling, which Congress has to pass legislation to raise by this summer, otherwise the US defaults on the national debt. The Freedom Caucus might very well see defaulting on the national debt as a positive, as they could try to blame the economic disaster on Biden and lessen trust in the federal government. >

The real danger is that half the country votes for a party which has a base which overall thinks shutting down the government if good actually and has no ability to have anyone explain otherwise. >

Including a lot of their troglodyte voters who are dependent on nonessential government functions and even some who are among the very same federal employees that would be laid off. >

There is some misunderstanding as to the extent of the opposition to McCarthy (or more specifically to traditional "Chamber of Commerce" Republicanism). It's not just the six, or even the 21. Another 40 or so of the so-called Freedom Caucus did not oppose McCarthy only because they were already satisfied that McCarthy would not stand in the way of the House investigating Hunter Biden's penis and all the other noble work they have in mind to serve the American people.
There are another 100 or so House members who are so extreme they would not be recognized as mainstream by Classic Conservatives. These folks also didn't oppose McCarthy only because don't see him as any formidable obstacle, and the moment they do: he is gone.
So the huge majority of the House detests or tolerates McCarthy, but there are few real tipping points that would provoke confrontation with McCarthy until September. He has lied to both sides about the Rules package and that will provoke some unhappiness next week, but that will pass. And committee assignments will be a bit bloody, but I think you'll see a pretty united House after that: they're all going to be a happy pack of investigators! No significant legislation will be forthcoming; that's not where they are. >


I don't think the House is passing a budget that isn't DOA

If the budget doesn't pass then government shuts down and millions of federal employees stop getting paychecks. This will cause a catastrophe and knowing the freedom caucus they'll use it to hold the bill hostage, but the public will blame them and so hopefully it will backfire greatly and force the other Republicans to work with Democrats. >

Except that after the freedom caucus causes this catastrophe, half of the public will still blame Biden. >

Half the public will blame Biden if they wake up constipated tomorrow. >

TBF I blamed him for being constipated today. >

It taking fifteen ballots and publicly begging Lauren Boebert and Matt Gaetz to save him demonstrate that no, he cannot be an effective leader. >

If McCarthy tries to work with Democrats all it takes is one of those crazies to call for his head. McCarthy is a Speaker in name only. He gets to enjoy a nice office and balcony and that’s it. He might as well stay on the balcony because the crazy caucus is in charge now. >

But won't it take a majority to remove him? If Mccarthy works with the dems, then the FC calls a re vote -- you need ALL 212 dems plus FC to remove him.
I.e. if he's working with the dems some wouldn't vote him out bc his replacement might be even worse >

How likely are a bunch of these new rules to be actually put into place? Don’t they have to be voted on? I would imagine their are some Republicans that aren’t going to go along with rewarded the Gaetz gang benefitting from their tantrum. >

The failed to pass a rules package last night and suspended it until Monday. It feels extremely clear to me that they don’t have the votes to pass a rules package that the holdouts will agree to, so the chaos is far from over. >

I don’t think the adjournment to vote on the Rules is a failure.  By the time Jeffries did his speech and McCarthy did his and did his oath, it was almost 2:00 am.  Some had thier children with them to be there for pics at oaths.  It doesn’t seem unreasonable to put that off until Monday >

I can't imagine anything more boring as a kid than being dragged to something like that. >

I've known all kinds of diplobrats, children of politicians and people in roles that aren't too different from politicians, and I once was one of those myself.
You get used to this kind of crap very early in life and you learn to roll with it. I feel sorry for the ones whose political families are Christian religions fanatics because I bet every second of their lives are controlled by fanatics. But relatively normal kids will get lots of opportunities to let their hair down a bit and misbehave a little while authority figures turn a blind eye. International school experiences can be pretty eye opening. You can put up with wearing a suit and sitting through hours of square patriotic music once in a while as long as the privileges keep flowing >

McCarthy has no intention of working with Democrats.   His hate caucus won't let him, he's their puppet now. >

Exactly right the chaos muppets don't want to actually get anything done. They are perfectly happy shutting down Congress. Their only goal is to stoke outrage and promote themselves. >

and I remember when Trump shut down the government.  and workers were out of work and could not afford their insulin, thank God only the Dems care about ending that grift of charging $500 for something that costs $5. >

But then they go right back to work for an institution that has repeatedly called their functions "non-essential", and at no time before the next shutdown does the thought of leaving that job occur to them even once. And many of them vote reliably for the very people who shut down their jobs as a political stunt. >

After the rules package settles with concessions for the moronic holdouts. You aren't going to see anything pass for legislation except fought over spending bills, and with the state of the republican house it will be the democrats forced to make concessions to get anything to pass.
For the next 2 years though, the house inquiries and sub commities will be the Republicans main focus. >

I don't think they have any intent of passing meaningful legislation.
I mean, listen to them. They talk about investigations into Hunter Biden, the DOJ, the January 6th Committee. These aren't serious people with serious plans.

the more conservative members

These folks are not more conservative; they're just less serious. They're willing to put on the red nose and go full clown show, while the rest embarrass themselves in a more subdued fashion.
Conservatism has lost its way.
All they have left is slogans, and the slogans run contrary to one another. "Make America great again!" "I'm for smaller government!" As if we electrified rural America, helped defeat the Nazis, built the Hoover Dam and put a man on the moon without government.
If there are real conservatives out there, with real plans, for serious legislation, they aren't getting elected. You can thank Fox for your base, or curse them for breaking it. Up to you, but no, the House won't pass anything meaningful under McCarthy, nor will they try.
Nor will they try... >

Not like they really can do much without the senate anyway. They will do their version of the J6 investigation and that's probably about it.
Could get interesting around debt ceiling time tho. >

An effective leader would not allow 20 congress members the far right to boss him around. All he did was concede to every single thing they wanted in order to get their votes. That's not leadership, that's being someone's tool. He's a doormat. >

If he promised the nuts power over senior republicans in committees, he probably has a problem getting that voted in.  The ability to toss the speakerwith just one vote is for all republicans, not just the nuts.  Just a few moderates (6)working a deal with dems can toss both Mccarthy and the nuts to the back of the bus.  And that number may be 4 soon. >

Can't the nuts just repeatedly hold no confidence votes once the new moderate speaker takes over? >

yes, they all can, but if the moderates forge a deal with dems, they'll never win on a speaker replacement.  the dems are much more disciplined and will always carry at minimum, 212 votes.  and the new speaker can just change this rule, requiring half vote no confidence to replace them. >

Can rules be changed mis session? I thought that once the rules were passed at the start of the session, they lasted until the next session of congress. >

don't know, but i suspect a new leader could probably do new rules. >

Pursuant to its authority under article I, section 5 of the Constitution, the House may change or waive the rules governing its proceedings. 94-1, Mar. 20, 1975, p 7677; 95-1, Nov. 1, 1977, p 36310. This is so even with respect to rules enacted by statute. Manual Sec. 857. Once the rules have been adopted at the convening of the House in a new Congress, further amendments to the rules are generally implemented by resolution reported from the Committee on Rules. A rule may in effect be suspended or modified through the use of certain procedural devices, such as a unanimous-consent request. Deschler Ch 5 Sec. 5. A motion to amend the rules of the House does not present a question of ``constitutional'' privilege. 8 Cannon Sec. 3377. A question of the privileges of the House may not be invoked to effect a change in the rules of the House or their interpretation. Manual Sec. 706; see generally Questions of Privilege. The effect of a proposed change in the rules or a proposed special order of business is a matter for debate and not within the jurisdiction of the Chair to decide on a parliamentary inquiry during its pendency. Manual Sec. 628; Deschler Ch 5 Sec. 5.12. For the motion to suspend the rules, see Suspension of Rules. >

Seems like it might be hard to be a leader when any one Republican can take away his seat with their vote. Seems like he will be walking on eggshells the whole time! >

Cute that you think they will pass legislation.  It's all about impeachment and investigations now. The GOP will have problems naming a Post office! >

Two years of hearings on Hunter’s laptop >

You can’t polish a turd. The current GOP is in the business of clown show divisive,  distraction politics while serving themselves and  their big donors.I expect nothing meaningful from these people. They’re not even worth an intelligent discussion at this point. >

The 1 vote thing is just dumb on the obstructionists part.  They are going to get screwed over no matter what they do since the Democrats will just prop him up pass the legislation they need and there is nothing that the freedom caucus can do about it until after the legislation is passed.  Then at that point Democrats can either continue to use it as leverage against Mccarthy against them or just allow him to lose the Speakership and rinse and repeat again.  They were better off just not bothering with it and keeping the current rule.  The other parts are not going to help them much either in the next election since EVERYONE can see how fucking idiotic they are and people will NOT vote for them.  And those Republicans in marginal districts are going to be lambs for the slaughter given the rest of what they gave away allows the inmates to run the asylum.  The bottom line is that Mccarthy put himself above his party and it will cost them dearly in 2024. >

I wish there were a lot of competitive districts, according to the Brennnan Center there are just 14 percent and most of them are in Blue States and already held by Democrats. The 4 lost in New York are probably the only possible pickups if the Republicans blow it all up. So if you are rooting for end of the world destruction enjoy your show because if they blow it all up, who controls the government after will be the least pressing concern. >

Assemble enough people, and fund their migration so they can live, register and vote in a district we'd like to flip.
Do it without fanfare. Do it in secrecy.
Yes it will cost a certain amount of money. Some districts will require you to find tens of thousands of individuals willing to conduct the operation, and they will require housing and subsistence costs. A drop in the bucket compared to how money is spent on political campaigns already.
I'd move to Jim Jordan's district for long enough to register and vote against him if you paid me my per diem and set me up in a nice rental near Lake Erie. I'm sure plenty of other people would as well. Would need about 80 thousand people in Jordan's case I believe, and a candidate who could draw the current democratic turnout in OH-4. If that's too expensive a proposal, I don't know what to tell you, saving the republic was never going to be cheap. >

I haven’t parsed the rules package yet.  If they vote him out, will they need to elect a new speaker?  That’s actually a pretty weak move for a minority group.  We get more of what just happened, which is going to be less effective each time. >

But it can be effective when there is deadline for passing a budget or raising the debt ceiling. >

They have never had effective leadership.  Their only goal is opposition to the Dems. >

McCarthy has shown his inability To lead and build coalitions. They voted for him because they were tired of the embarrassment and wanted to get a paycheck for themselves and their staff. 
I predict the rules vote will go on for days if not weeks. He promised everything to everyone which will make nobody happy >

He's never been effective at anything in his life. Why would he suddenly start become ineffective? He's a dull tool used by a bunch of fascists. 
Since his stupidity is in line with the rest of their stupidity he fits right in. I'm sure he'll do his job just dandy like all the other Republicans that people have voted for us for some inexpitable reason. >

NOT AN ATTEMPT TO DERAIL…
But, with the ability for any one House member to basically call for, state that he/she has a vote of no confidence KMc, how long until that happens ?
How long until there’s another shit show of voting for a new Speaker?
And I’m assuming no Democrat will call for a vote of no confidence in KMc because then Dems will be blamed for the shit show.  The Dems seems to be smart enough to let the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot by not calling for a vote of no confidence and letting a Republican do so. >


How long until there’s another shit show of voting for a new Speaker?

They could surprise us.
It could take a whole month. >

McCarthy has never proven an effective leader. He goes more "with the flow" than a body. The democrats would be wise to let his power hang him and his fellow repubs themselves. I foresee a two year assault on Hunter Biden in the most effective comparison campaign, all the while the religious right extremists get louder and more contentious. They are ready to blow it all up themselves. >

The Republican House will be obsessed with revenge and bogus hearings will be held over total ridiculous claims including attacks on the CDC, Fauci, the FBI etc. it’s going to be a shitstorm of political baloney designed to bring down Democrats and “save America” from diversity, not advance the needs of the people. And NO the People do not need another political circus like Trump and his goons gave us. We need results not a bunch of Christian Karens venting. >

The point isn’t to work with Democrats on anything. Even if, or maybe especially if, it is about something like saving the country. >

Simply… No. but isn’t that the point anyway? They don’t want government to work. That’s their MO. Fuck it up and then blame Democrats. >

The speaker vote was by far the easiest vote of this a Congress. And it took them near a week. >

It’s a January 6 miracle. From the people who brought you 4 years of Benghazi investigations, get ready for a wave of investigations and impeachments over the greatest crime in all 700 years the Earth has existed (Hunter’s laptop). If McCarthy attempts to do anything other than this - such as actually fund the government - then the Jewish Space Laser caucus will call a snap vote to replace him. 
If you’re a QAnon lawyer, psychic, or have the credentials to be a Fox News national security expert, then send your resume as soon as they announce the committee assignments. Also you should be booking your room at the Trump International Hotel in DC now before they fill up. I know the rates seem high but remember that the American taxpayer will be footing the bill. >

Expect a government shutdown at the very least. My worry is that we will have the shutdown and he will try to negotiate with democrats. During this negotiation, the crazies will trigger the no confidence and you’ll be stuck with government shutdown and no speaker of the house. >

The government shuts down every day at five. Sometimes before three. Sometimes they aren't even open except by appointment.
Let's stop pretending that "the government" is essential or that it functions even when open. >

Didn’t expect a response from an anarchist. The government is essential, otherwise you would be able to point out a single modem example where governmentless society functions. Aspects of our country don’t work as well as others but I suspect that’s on purpose. Public housing is a great example where the government purposefully makes it terrible. >

My hope is that moderate Republicans can work with Democrats to torpedo the moves McCarthy had to make to win over insurrectionists >

The Republicans are just making noise in a powerless House of Representatives that can't do anything without Democratic support in the Senate and with the president. Nothing but offer investigations going nowhere, turmoil and Chaos within their own party while trying to convince their constituents, the ones that don't know any better, that they really can do something >

Not only did McCarthy not "win", we ALL lost. We are now ruled by a gaggle of nincompoops who only ran because they want to burn the government down. No legislation that has a chance of passing the Senate or avoiding a veto will be presented for the next two years...unless enough of the Gaggle of 20 wind up in jail for sedition and their replacements have working brains, a hint of morality and an honest desire to GOVERN. >

We will have a Russian asset in charge of the House Armed Services committee. Never mind governing, we're at war and have spies inside our war room. >


Scoring Conveyances of Federal Land. Subsection (h) reinstates the
separate order from the 115th Congress providing that any provision in a bill, joint
resolution, amendment, or conference report requiring or authorizing a conveyance
of federal land to a State, local government, or tribal entity, shall not be considered
as providing new budget authority, decreasing revenues, increasing mandatory
spending, or increasing outlays.

LAND votes for them, so of course republicans want to be able to gift it to their benefactors as quid pro quo... but that's not swampy at all /s >

The fundamental problem with this Congress is that there are 200 republicans whose only policy agenda is bringing home the bacon to their wealthy contributors and getting reelected and 20 republicans and one former president who have a policy agenda that has been rejected by the voters enough times for the 200 know if they embrace it they  will get voted out of office and this group is trying to form a government. >

The Freedumb Cockus sez you can get up off your knees now, Kevin, but they retain the right to have you drop again at their bidding. 
Have a great two years, ~~Squeeker~~, er, Speaker. >

McCarthy cannot manage to be an effective leader because he is not an effective leader.  He has demonstrated this publicly very recently. >

Effective leadership presumes that you have some kind of legislative agenda other than destroying government. >

House won't get anything done other than blocking as much as possible from the Senate.
I think some more moderate Rep. will jump ship and vote for bills that have already passed the Senate. 
So, no, he won't get anything done that the extremist Rep. want. 
Some are worried they will high jack Congress so that budgets won't get passed, ect..
I don't think that will happen for very long. The crazies that caused this mess are so incompetent that I don't think they even know HOW to shutdown the government for very long. 
Maybe I am being delusional because I don't want to admit that these 10 crazies will ruin the second half of Biden's term, but who knows. >

I expect more of the same kind of fuckery from his detractors.  Nothing has changed just because he had to be butt fucked to be elected.  He will continue to be their bitch >

He perhsps  could but does not appear interested in doing so. Asuuming he trief  I'm not sure how many "reasonable" republicans would back cooperation nor how many democtats would play ball. These "Reasonable" republicans had a real opportunity to buck the magas by  threatening to vote for Jefferies or even just against McCarthy if they felt  concessions were too extreme. They apparently declined. So it was race to the bottom, giving away all but the title to the fringe
Democrats could have offered to back McCarthy without the rules changes but didn't, which was probably  smart politically but basically guarantees absolutely  nothing gets done for at least 2 years >


Democrats could have offered to back McCarthy without the rules changes but didn't

Ehhh...
Sure.  They could have made the offer.  They could've offered all sorts of things.  But McCarthy wouldn't take it, because if his rise to power was predicated on aligning with Dems to avoid the rules changes many Republicans want he'd be out of of politics in two years, and his caucus would be in open rebellion against him.
McCarthy is one of the more than 100 GOP Reps that refused to certify the 2020 election.  Seems like a low bar to cross to be put in the line of succession.  But he failed.  He's no moderate.  He's a man with a lust for power and zero principles.  Dems had no reason to help him into power. >

I agree they didn't have any reason >

He is useless he can’t do anything with out some member. Motion to remove him and the subsequent vote. >

Day 1 (Monday): When he doesn't call for impeachment of Biden, the Trump Communist sheep will demand he resign. >

The only thing McCarthy will succeed in doing is convincing the American public that they definitely shouldn’t vote for Hunter Biden for President. >

I dunno about that, so far all republicans have done is prove that hunter has a bigger dick than they do. >

McCarthy won't even be Speaker in a month. One of the key demands he gave in to was a one-member threshold vote of no confidence. So now that he's given the insurrectionist everything they want as far as committee assignments and rules package and etc, he's no longer useful to them and they have no reason to keep him around. So at the very first opportunity he's going to get voted out. He has absolutely no leverage and no power and thanks to this display everyone knows it. >

I imagine it is going to be like the last two years of the Trump presidency when the balance of power was reversed.  There will be lots of partisan squabbling feeding the media going in to 2024 but not much getting done. >

Equating these two situations feels a bit disingenuous…
Almost as if saying “eh, both parties lie” in response to republicans trying to blatantly dismantle democracy itself. >

I don't think it's disingenuous, the point is that the media loves arguing and fighting, not that Democrats and Republicans are the same. >

That’s not the question being responded to. The question was about what productive outcomes are likely in this session, and how will the new rule changes play out in practice.
Making it about “oh yeah, both sides like to fight and the media loves fighting so it’s all the same stuff as always” is a ridiculous narrative. >

lets pick it apart

it is going to be like the last two years of the Trump presidency when the balance of power was reversed. 

is this not true? did the balance of power in the house reverse?
it did..

There will be lots of partisan squabbling feeding the media going in to 2024 

is this not true? is there going to be partisan arguing and is the media going to cover all of it? 
yes and yes...

but not much getting done.

is this not true? is a lot of legislation going to pass?
no, it wont.
the OP comment is objectively true. at no point did the OP comment equate the 2 parties either, you inferred something that was not implied.