comment: >
  
  That pedophile should resign regardless and be taken to jail for corruption.
context: Matt Gaetz also says he didn’t travel across state lines with an underage girl for sex. But he did. >
  
  And yet he's still free. I wonder if he resigned if that meant he'd have no protection from the law anymore. After all, rules for thee >
  
  His dad is still a former politician who has pull and he's got plenty of money to keep his son from ever seeing a prison cell. >
  
  Real life Sin City type shit >
  
  God damn that's accurate and also makes me want to re-watch the first Sin City asap.  While I didn't completely hate the second one I was so incredibly disappointed with the sequel >
  
  Holy shit I had hard blocked the second one out of memory, I legitimately was confused when you mentioned a second one. Until I realized I had seen it in theaters, it just sucked so bad I completely forgot it's existence. Like the sequel to 300 >
  
  All I remember from the second Sin City was Eva Green >
  
  All anyone remembers about a movie with Eva Green is her boobs. >
  
  That's not true.  I also remember her eyes. >
  
  Right. Because he wouldn't, you know, LIE >
  
  His real comment was he'd resign if the Democrats break ranks and elect McCarthy.  "I will resign...  That's how certain I am.  I can assure your viewers: That won't happen."
  He used a rhetorical device to make a point.  He wasn't making a power play (If you don't do what I want, I'm going home!) because he has no power in this context.  Now, do I believe he will actually stand behind his statement?  Not at all.
  What I find more amusing is his statement about why he isn't supporting McCarthy.  "If you want to drain the swamp, you cannot put the biggest alligator in charge of the exercise.  I'm a Florida man.  I know of what I speak."  (emphasis mine) >
  
  He's also technically right on this one, but overall wrong. Will Dems help McCarthy? Unlikely. Will they help some other Republican become speaker? Yea, that could definitely happen with the right concessions.
  Imagine a speaker Liz Cheney or Adam Kinzinger. Remember, you don't have to be a member of the House to be Speaker, and they're better candidates than Trump given that Trump is dumb as rocks and Cheney and Kinzinger have actually served in the House. >
  
  The Dems are blowing a huge opportunity by not nominating Liz Cheney and backing her. Doing so would eviscerate the insurrectionist wing of the GOP in the House. It would also be a bipartisan move that would be popular with a lot of Independents. The way things are going now with the Dems just sitting idly by and nominating Jeffries over and over, the insurrectionist wing of the GOP is gaining power (McCarthy is making a lot of concessions to them to try to win their votes).
  It seems likely that the Dems could've gotten Liz Cheney as speaker as they'd only need to convince 6 Rs to vote for her (if all the Dems voted for her) and that seems pretty doable. The window, however, is closing. >
  
  
  It seems likely that the Dems could've gotten Liz Cheney as speaker as they'd only need to convince 6 Rs to vote for her (if all the Dems voted for her) and that seems pretty doable.
  
  I highly doubt that you can get the majority of Dems to vote for a Republican. What we'd need is for all of McCarthy's backers to support Cheney, and then for enough Dems to fail to show for the vote such that the Republicans votes alone represent a majority. 
  There's a tiny chance you can get a sliver of House Dems to vote for a Republican, but that's a small number for Cheney and maybe a slightly larger number for Kinzinger... but why do that when you can preserve unanimity for Jeffries AND allow Republicans to get a working Speaker? Now, when it comes time to vote on rules, no one's sitting out. That's where the real deal would be cut. >
  
  
  I highly doubt that you can get the majority of Dems to vote for a Republican.
  
  And that's a problem. Given the situation they're not going to get Jeffries. Thinking strategically it would be better to have Cheney than McCarthy. They know they can work with her as on the Jan 6 committee and they know she's opposed to the insurrectionist wing of the GOP. McCarthy has been making lots of concessions to his right wing... and none to the Dems (why would he?)
  
  but why do that when you can preserve unanimity for Jeffries AND allow Republicans to get a working Speaker?
  
  I assume you mean McCarthy when you say "working Speaker"? Because McCarthy, as above, has made lots of concessions to the insurrectionist wing of his party. Including huge budget cuts in order to raise the debt ceiling. There have been no concessions to what the Dems want and won't be as long as the Dems continue to not think about this strategically. As Gaetz implies, the right wing doesn't want the Dems to think this way because they (the insurrectionist wing of the GOP) lose power in that scenario. >
  
  Seriously, it’d be an easy and big win for the democrats. As it goes they can either
  A. Coooperate and get a moderate Republican and potentially some concessions. It’ll also play well with moderates and portray them as the “get things done” party.
  B. Continue down this path and end up with McCarthy (bad) or with someone even further right to break this block.
  It’s seriously so frustrating to watch. >
  
  
  Coooperate and get a moderate Republican and potentially some concessions
  
  Problem with this is that there are no moderate Republicans. Cheney and Kinzinger are less extreme, but the only bar they rose above was not supporting treason, which is a very low bar. Policy wise, they're still extreme right wingers, and there's no benefit to trying to put them in charge.
  And while people like to keep repeating the factoid that they don't have to be a member of Congress, that's just not going to happen. People only like those two specially because they know their names.
  The reality is that any Republican will only act in the interests of the GOP, which is to say, any successful action they take will be bad for the county. The longer they do nothing, the less they can harm the populace. >
  
  Oh no. Stop. Don’t. Whatever shall we do. >
  
  the best version of this is Jason Segel in I love you man. Kills me every time  
  edit:  for anyone upvoting- seriously go watch the scene where the girl hit him with the golf ball and then she’s leaving…. the physical comedy is next level. >
  
  Fantastic film. Lou Ferrigno is so strong! Peter, he’s so strong! >
  
  So...... What's the actual threat here then? >
  
  It was more like "if they do that, I'll eat my hat!" kinda thing. It was him expressing how certain he is that won't happen >
  
  Exactly. That the press has gobbled this quote up and spat out actual serious headlines is honestly so embarrassing. But because Gaetz is such a hot topic in the GOP and anything he does gets an insane amount of clicks, had he said something like "If they do it, I'll eat my left foot", the press would completely miss the point and instead immediately be interviewing surgeons and getting quotes from medical professionals about how it's considered unhealthy to eat one's foot. 
  Downvote me if you want to but, as much as I'm sure everyone would love to see the shitheal leave congress, the guy was just being hyperbolic. >
  
  exactly what has been happening with all the "news" media. >
  
  Go fuck yourself, Matt Gaetz. >
  
  He's too old for himself to do that. >
  
  The only way I'd like to see him leave congress is in, you know, handcuffs, for being a pedophile. >
  
  Why not use the Mace of the Republic? >
  
  I'm disappointed that there is no mention of bonking under the Procedure section. >
  
  Though you'd have to hit them with the flat end to avoid breaking the eagle. >
  
  Is that a promise? >
  
  Might be worth it if he wasn’t a big, fat liar. >
  
  Oh no! Threatening everyone with a good time is he? >
  
  Careful, we all know what a good time for him involves. >
  
  This is his way of saying there are no honorable Republicans that Dems could get behind. >
  
  Exactly. You’re as likely to elect a unicorn or pay with a Stanley Nickel than see a “moderate” conservative. >
  
  Sweet, somewhere else I can spend my Stanley Nickels!