comment: >
  
  That’s literally a link to an article with a picture of Josh Hawley throwing up a fist to the crowd that would eventually becomes the insurrectionist mob. Are you fucking kidding me? The mental gymnastics are goddamn astounding.
context: It’s not like they’re limited to one motion to vacate a day. We could have 50 motions to vacate every day. >
  
  ill have the popcorn ready >
  
  It'll be used a lot. In most cases the Chair will recognize a "Nay" voice vote and a call for actual voting will be much rarer.
  Once the Rules package is passed, and I think that will be bloody, and the committee assignments are finished, also bloody, you'll see a fairly unified Republican House gleefully getting on with their investigations. This will be their only work until September because the legislation they consider will only be ineffective show not serious enough to do battle with each other. >
  
  Does a Republican have to make the motion or can any congressman voice their motion? It has to be only Republicans correct? >
  
  The new Rules can say anything they want but theoretically it can be anyone.
  In practice the Chair of course can recognize or ignore whomever it wants. It can rule anyone out of order. When a voice vote is called the Chair decides who wins. A request for standing votes is also an eye count by the Chair. Only if a request from the floor gets by that would the electronic Yays & Nays be called. And even then, votes can be held open beyond the clock for change, arm twisting, members dying of old age.
  In practical terms I don't see a successful motion by a Democrat ever being made for a change in the Speakership. 
  Unlike the Senate where there are drastic limitations on the power of a slight/modest majority, in the House the slimmest of majorities is absolute and can do just about anything it wants (to the opposition, I'm not talking about the mess among themselves). This absolute power will become most obvious in the "investigations" and subpoenas to come. >
  
  It's not that surprising a change from what I can tell. The current rule was only made in 2019. >
  
  
  It's not that surprising a change from what I can tell. The current rule was only made in 2019
  
  Different world. The House has been going crazy for 20 years but it's on an exponential growth curve. >
  
  No, totally true. Just saying that the rule itself isn't that crazygonuts >
  
  I think the small anti-McCarthy faction will threaten to use this many times, both publicly and quietly, to no avail. Do they actually go through with it and force a vote? At least once, yes. I cannot imagine a world where Gaetz and the others get this concession and choose not to use it. 
  The real question is - what will the votes look like when it does inevitably happen? Democrats will all vote to remove. Maybe a few vote present if they are vulnerable in a purple district and facing a serious GOP challenge in 2024. In all likelihood though the Dems will unite in voting for removal.
  After that, it’s a matter of picking off 5 more Republicans to votes. This would be very difficult, even though the recent speaker debacle makes it seem otherwise. Getting a speaker removed from the position would ostracize even someone as shitty as Gaetz, if only because it would further signal a gargantuan rift within the party. Everyone that blocked McCarthy knows this and won’t take the risk, especially if McCarthy continues to be weak and gives them what they want in the name of peace. 
  The Democrats are stronger than the GOP bargained for and the looming chaos of the 2024 presidential primary are giving McCarthy quite a lot of pressure to keep his house in order. He knows the motion to vacate will occur eventually - it is in his interest to keep the psychos at bay no matter the cost. >
  
  
  Everyone that blocked McCarthy knows this and won’t take the risk
  
  I can't say I'm as certain. Everything feels so unprecedented and crazy, a part of me could absolutely see them doing that. >
  
  
  Will Dems use this tactic to stall Republican legislation?
  
  No, because the rule will be written so that only a member of the majority party can do it. >
  
  I don't think they can actually write rules that limit the minority otherwise why stop there, why not write a rule that states that the minority cannot enter the building, or that the minority cannot vote unless they stand on one leg while singing the peanut butter jelly song? >
  
  This is a very logical argument and I agree with you. Republicans will undoubtably try anyway. Throw everything against the wall and see what sticks, etc. >
  
  People who have different  opinions than me are evil and will do any and all things with evil motives
  Curious, do you know the definition of bigotry? >
  
  People aren't really upset about the opinions in Congress, they're upset about their incredibly shitty behavior these last 10 years. They've supported insurrection, stuck up for a traitor, threw out rules when it's about them, and generally acted like petulant children when they don't get their way. Even Senate Republicans bashed House Republicans for being so unprofessional and incompetent. 
  If the people charged with upholding conservative ideals weren't complete pieces of shit...too stupid to even manage a fast food restaurant, let alone be a productive member of Congress, people wouldn't disrespect them just for their opinions. >
  
  No one in congress supported the blm riots nor the 6th riots aka the insurrections as an insurrection is a revolt against the gov or civil authority (police)
  Members f congress supported the ideas and misinformation that led to these so called insurections
  Threw out rules?  You mean like when democrats tossed the 60% rule to stop a filibuster of judges so they could pass on Hispanic, conservative judge who they feared the gop was setting up to be the first Hispanic judge?
  Let's be honest, people only oppose the changing of rules when it helps the other team and support it when it helps theirs
  But you hatred and bigotry is clear.  The only thing interesting is people of your ilk claim to oppose hatred and bigotry while embracing it >
  
  
  No one in congress supported the blm riots nor the 6th riots aka the insurrections
  
  You sure about that bud? >
  
  Yes I'm sure, no where in that link did anyone support the blm riots/insurrection nor the 6th riots/insurrection