>

I want to see motions to vacate every day.
Includes rule that all bills must be available to read 72 hours before the vote. Also includes last-minute addition containing the final concessions given to the Freedom Caucus that only the handful of people that wrote it got to see before voting on it. >

While simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.
Read Section 5. >


Read Section 5.

Could you explain? I am trying to get this, but so far my reading of the rules package indicates that the new 72 hour rule only applies to Calendar Wednesday described in Clause 6(a) of rule XV. You say there is something that effects this under "section 5". Clause 5 of rule XV talks about the "Private Calendar" so this isn't the section 5 you are talking about. >

Section 5, which starts on page 50 of the rules package will move into immediately passing 10 (exact count) bills and 2 concurrent resolutions that will not be read, all points of contention on the bills are waived, and only an hour debate split between parties for each. >


that will not be read

The wording "shall be considered as read" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.
​

all points of contention on the bills are waived

All points of order against the bills are waived. This is standard for special rules like this. Otherwise, what would be the point of using special rules?
​

only an hour of debate split between parties

Sometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.
​
You seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used. >

I liked my life better when I was in my early 20’s and didn’t care about politics. Now, I just realize what a shit show this life really is. >

The good news is that you can be part of the solution now. And you're not alone. There were a ton of young voters turning out for the election last year. >

How? I’ve voted for the party that is promised to “solve” these problems in the last 3 elections and will continue to do so. It’s not a solution. Contributing to a stalemate is just beating your head against a wall. Voting means nothing in this country with gerrymandering and the electoral college. Not to mention voting for either party really just locks us into slow churning dysfunctional partisan politics at the congressional level. >

Unfortunately, people have to keep voting until Democrats have a super majority in the Senate and there are more progressives in their party to hold them accountable if they want to see any meaningful change. That’s probably going to take a decade of consistently voting blue. This goes down the ballot to local state legislators. The only reason Republicans have control of the house is because of Gerrymandering in Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Tennessee, etc. State legislatures are the ones drawing the maps. Progress is slow, but taking away progress is relatively quick. >

That's ironic, given it was CSPAN in the house chambers that led to these clowns even getting a platform in the first place (Gingrich used to give speeches to an empty house late at night because he knew people could still watch him on CSPAN).
edit: Although this is not an end to CSPAN's broadcasting of the house - they just have to rely on the feed that the house provides rather than their own crews and cameras. >

Which, in all honesty is how they've operated for decades. This isn't in anyway new or partisan. We just got some cool footage due to there being no rules package until the speaker could get one voted on. >

Thank you, I did not know that! >

Yea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside. >

I didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube >

I was watching on youtube >

Ok, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees? >

I believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone. >

Get ready for all Republican committees. 😠 >

Thats literally not allowed >

All saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are. >

I suppose I was hoping for too much. If this pattern continues, that's not a good sign for the Democrats in 2024, as that means a much tougher road. >

It will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no,  circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful. >

Honestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate. >

It won't be boring if the House fails to raise the debt ceiling and causes the US to default on its debts (due to already committed spending) and/or the federal government is forced to shutdown for an extended period of time.  There are some thing that the House needs to do for our country to continue functioning, and I worry it won't be capable of doing so. >

...that threat has happened nearly every session since I was in high school when Obama first got elected. Like legit that threat is made every time it comes about but they won't do that because it would devalue the dollar which makes them poorer. They can threaten it, they can posture, but at the end of the day their wallets will make them vote on it. B-o-r-i-n-g. >

Every other time the Republicans have made the threat it was pretty obviously a threat to try to get something.  Right now we have at least 20 Republicans in the House who seem to legitimately want to hurt the country (and in particular the federal government) in whatever way they can, and I think they would actually follow through with it.  I doubt it is even a majority of Republicans in the House who want that, but if it only takes 6 of them to oust McCarthy as Speaker, the only way I see to avoid it is for McCarthy's speakership to fail and a cross-party coalition to form in the House.  Are there enough Republicans who would rather that happen than tear the whole thing down? >

It doesn't take 6 of them to remove McCarthy as speaker. That's assuming the Democrats would vote alongside the Q-Anon caucus to remove McCarthy, which is unlikely >

I am assuming the Dems would vote to remove McCarthy as Speaker if anyone ever forces that vote.  They didn't want him as Speaker to start with, so why wouldn't they vote to remove him if given the opportunity? >

Why would they vote to remove him as speaker if all they would get was someone from the Q-Anon caucus? They would not. The Q-Anon caucus is assuming the Democrats are as dumb as they are, which is not the case. They would have no reason to support them or give the Q-Anon caucus a political win. They might not like McCarthy, but giving power to someone even more destructive is not in their interest. >

What I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house. >

Exactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!! >

Will you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public? >

Sure, i can do that! >

Thanks!