comment: >
  
  
  I actually read through the rules
  
  It's good to have people who are willing to wade into the details. If you're interested in helping to crowdsource functional government, check out the American Union. Wouldn't it be great to offer voters a constructive alternative to the shit show in 2024?
context: It means he’s on an insanely short leash. He’s not well liked nor trusted by members of his own caucus >
  
  I did read somewhere that this isn't an insane change. It's a revert to rules pre-2019. The requirement for a caucus head to request it is pretty recent. >
  
  Yeah, the change it’s reversing sounds stranger than the way it was before. >
  
  He'll be stuck constantly trying to please everyone. Of course, just because one person initiates the vote doesn't mean that there'll be a majority to support it, but it certainly could be very disruptive. Since the Freedom Caucus doesn't seem to be interested in actually passing any legislation, they could just use it to disrupt proceedings when they feel like it. No confidence motions could be the new filibuster. >
  
  The Freedom Caucus is just there for political theater and sound bites. Even if Congress was in a joint session to declare war on Russia or something, they’d do some weird shit. >
  
  Which actually fits expectations for fox news watchers who are bored enough to watch the fox news to feel they are alive. >
  
  Yea. Last night during coverage of the McCarthy vote, someone related a recent story about Boebert. In the story she was quoted that, “While we are here (McCarthy election for Speaker), at least the federal government isn’t spending money.”
  Not sure she wasn’t being /s, but if not, hey Lauren. The federal budget for the current FY was passed in the LAST session of Congress. >
  
  A vote to vacate the chair is just that...a vote. It would require the entire House of Representatives to vote to change Speakers so would not be taken lightly. Since the Republicans would still have the majority it is likely they would prevail. This rule was in place for most of the history of the House and was only blocked by Nancy Pelosi recently. It was last used 100 years ago. >
  
  This is helpful; thanks. What incentive would democrats have to vote in favor of keeping the speaker? (Are there examples from history you can point toward?) >
  
  There really are none. No one has used the Vacate the chair rule for 100 years. Democrats would have no incentive to keep the Speaker from the opposing party. That's why the majority gets to choose the Speaker. >
  
  Honestly after the rules change I can’t see him being speaker for more than 9 months. Since the house will have to pass a debt ceiling increase in October and the tea party will get rid of him when he isn’t able to cut hundreds of billions from the budget. >
  
  The debt ceiling is going to be a fucking shit show. It honestly scares me that our country is going to be partially run by these idiots. >
  
  I actually read through the rules (I have no life) and my initial thought was “this mostly makes sense.” I mean, most of it involves thinking through the long-term consequence of spending decisions which, theoretically, is the wise move. 
  Then, I thought about how the Freedom Caucus would use these rules for publicity stunts and temper tantrums. 
  Yeah, “shit show” is an understatement. This will get ugly.