Datasets:

---

innovation-hacking2

/

shitposting_dataset3

like 0

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats." ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?" ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations." ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize." ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor" ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days." ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?" ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)" ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?" ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging." ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years." ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”" ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama" ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative" ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering" ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans." ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage." ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists...." ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world" ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in." ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer" ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?" ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?", ">\n\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package?\n\nFor the same reason Santa Claus doesn't join the Easter Bunny for a cup of tea" ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?", ">\n\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package?\n\nFor the same reason Santa Claus doesn't join the Easter Bunny for a cup of tea", ">\n\nChasing Amy" ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?", ">\n\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package?\n\nFor the same reason Santa Claus doesn't join the Easter Bunny for a cup of tea", ">\n\nChasing Amy", ">\n\nI didn't think of that when I typed it, but I SHOULD have!" ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?", ">\n\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package?\n\nFor the same reason Santa Claus doesn't join the Easter Bunny for a cup of tea", ">\n\nChasing Amy", ">\n\nI didn't think of that when I typed it, but I SHOULD have!", ">\n\nBuckle up buckaroos!" ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?", ">\n\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package?\n\nFor the same reason Santa Claus doesn't join the Easter Bunny for a cup of tea", ">\n\nChasing Amy", ">\n\nI didn't think of that when I typed it, but I SHOULD have!", ">\n\nBuckle up buckaroos!", ">\n\nWell, get ready for a US debt default, huh." ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?", ">\n\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package?\n\nFor the same reason Santa Claus doesn't join the Easter Bunny for a cup of tea", ">\n\nChasing Amy", ">\n\nI didn't think of that when I typed it, but I SHOULD have!", ">\n\nBuckle up buckaroos!", ">\n\nWell, get ready for a US debt default, huh.", ">\n\nTheir doners don’t want that to happen. It’s just chicken" ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?", ">\n\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package?\n\nFor the same reason Santa Claus doesn't join the Easter Bunny for a cup of tea", ">\n\nChasing Amy", ">\n\nI didn't think of that when I typed it, but I SHOULD have!", ">\n\nBuckle up buckaroos!", ">\n\nWell, get ready for a US debt default, huh.", ">\n\nTheir doners don’t want that to happen. It’s just chicken", ">\n\nGym Jordan leading a committee is the stuff of nightmares." ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?", ">\n\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package?\n\nFor the same reason Santa Claus doesn't join the Easter Bunny for a cup of tea", ">\n\nChasing Amy", ">\n\nI didn't think of that when I typed it, but I SHOULD have!", ">\n\nBuckle up buckaroos!", ">\n\nWell, get ready for a US debt default, huh.", ">\n\nTheir doners don’t want that to happen. It’s just chicken", ">\n\nGym Jordan leading a committee is the stuff of nightmares.", ">\n\nI would love to see a Democrat bring a Motion to Vacate and see what happens." ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?", ">\n\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package?\n\nFor the same reason Santa Claus doesn't join the Easter Bunny for a cup of tea", ">\n\nChasing Amy", ">\n\nI didn't think of that when I typed it, but I SHOULD have!", ">\n\nBuckle up buckaroos!", ">\n\nWell, get ready for a US debt default, huh.", ">\n\nTheir doners don’t want that to happen. It’s just chicken", ">\n\nGym Jordan leading a committee is the stuff of nightmares.", ">\n\nI would love to see a Democrat bring a Motion to Vacate and see what happens.", ">\n\nI believe that rule only applies to republicans" ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?", ">\n\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package?\n\nFor the same reason Santa Claus doesn't join the Easter Bunny for a cup of tea", ">\n\nChasing Amy", ">\n\nI didn't think of that when I typed it, but I SHOULD have!", ">\n\nBuckle up buckaroos!", ">\n\nWell, get ready for a US debt default, huh.", ">\n\nTheir doners don’t want that to happen. It’s just chicken", ">\n\nGym Jordan leading a committee is the stuff of nightmares.", ">\n\nI would love to see a Democrat bring a Motion to Vacate and see what happens.", ">\n\nI believe that rule only applies to republicans", ">\n\nThe article linked above says either party." ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?", ">\n\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package?\n\nFor the same reason Santa Claus doesn't join the Easter Bunny for a cup of tea", ">\n\nChasing Amy", ">\n\nI didn't think of that when I typed it, but I SHOULD have!", ">\n\nBuckle up buckaroos!", ">\n\nWell, get ready for a US debt default, huh.", ">\n\nTheir doners don’t want that to happen. It’s just chicken", ">\n\nGym Jordan leading a committee is the stuff of nightmares.", ">\n\nI would love to see a Democrat bring a Motion to Vacate and see what happens.", ">\n\nI believe that rule only applies to republicans", ">\n\nThe article linked above says either party.", ">\n\nInvestigations and making noise is all they got. Not a single piece of legislation they pass has a hope in hell of passing. Until the money runs out and then it is going to be drive the economy into the toilet by defaulting on debt payments." ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?", ">\n\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package?\n\nFor the same reason Santa Claus doesn't join the Easter Bunny for a cup of tea", ">\n\nChasing Amy", ">\n\nI didn't think of that when I typed it, but I SHOULD have!", ">\n\nBuckle up buckaroos!", ">\n\nWell, get ready for a US debt default, huh.", ">\n\nTheir doners don’t want that to happen. It’s just chicken", ">\n\nGym Jordan leading a committee is the stuff of nightmares.", ">\n\nI would love to see a Democrat bring a Motion to Vacate and see what happens.", ">\n\nI believe that rule only applies to republicans", ">\n\nThe article linked above says either party.", ">\n\nInvestigations and making noise is all they got. Not a single piece of legislation they pass has a hope in hell of passing. Until the money runs out and then it is going to be drive the economy into the toilet by defaulting on debt payments.", ">\n\nAnd every subpoena should earn this response: “We are following the guidance of Jim Jordan, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. When he deems it suitable to comply with congressional subpoenas, we will join him.” And since the Jan 6 committee has been disbanded and Gymmy can’t even fulfill his obligation, that’s the end of all compliance." ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?", ">\n\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package?\n\nFor the same reason Santa Claus doesn't join the Easter Bunny for a cup of tea", ">\n\nChasing Amy", ">\n\nI didn't think of that when I typed it, but I SHOULD have!", ">\n\nBuckle up buckaroos!", ">\n\nWell, get ready for a US debt default, huh.", ">\n\nTheir doners don’t want that to happen. It’s just chicken", ">\n\nGym Jordan leading a committee is the stuff of nightmares.", ">\n\nI would love to see a Democrat bring a Motion to Vacate and see what happens.", ">\n\nI believe that rule only applies to republicans", ">\n\nThe article linked above says either party.", ">\n\nInvestigations and making noise is all they got. Not a single piece of legislation they pass has a hope in hell of passing. Until the money runs out and then it is going to be drive the economy into the toilet by defaulting on debt payments.", ">\n\nAnd every subpoena should earn this response: “We are following the guidance of Jim Jordan, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. When he deems it suitable to comply with congressional subpoenas, we will join him.” And since the Jan 6 committee has been disbanded and Gymmy can’t even fulfill his obligation, that’s the end of all compliance.", ">\n\nThey confirmed shut down the committee? Did it release it's findings?" ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?", ">\n\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package?\n\nFor the same reason Santa Claus doesn't join the Easter Bunny for a cup of tea", ">\n\nChasing Amy", ">\n\nI didn't think of that when I typed it, but I SHOULD have!", ">\n\nBuckle up buckaroos!", ">\n\nWell, get ready for a US debt default, huh.", ">\n\nTheir doners don’t want that to happen. It’s just chicken", ">\n\nGym Jordan leading a committee is the stuff of nightmares.", ">\n\nI would love to see a Democrat bring a Motion to Vacate and see what happens.", ">\n\nI believe that rule only applies to republicans", ">\n\nThe article linked above says either party.", ">\n\nInvestigations and making noise is all they got. Not a single piece of legislation they pass has a hope in hell of passing. Until the money runs out and then it is going to be drive the economy into the toilet by defaulting on debt payments.", ">\n\nAnd every subpoena should earn this response: “We are following the guidance of Jim Jordan, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. When he deems it suitable to comply with congressional subpoenas, we will join him.” And since the Jan 6 committee has been disbanded and Gymmy can’t even fulfill his obligation, that’s the end of all compliance.", ">\n\nThey confirmed shut down the committee? Did it release it's findings?", ">\n\nWith a AI’s becoming more and more prevalent, if I was in charge of money from the democratic caucus, I would be creating an AI that could easily scan through these thousand page bills to look for a specific keywords, and become a learning program, that specifically will highlight problems with the bills in regards to undermining democracy." ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?", ">\n\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package?\n\nFor the same reason Santa Claus doesn't join the Easter Bunny for a cup of tea", ">\n\nChasing Amy", ">\n\nI didn't think of that when I typed it, but I SHOULD have!", ">\n\nBuckle up buckaroos!", ">\n\nWell, get ready for a US debt default, huh.", ">\n\nTheir doners don’t want that to happen. It’s just chicken", ">\n\nGym Jordan leading a committee is the stuff of nightmares.", ">\n\nI would love to see a Democrat bring a Motion to Vacate and see what happens.", ">\n\nI believe that rule only applies to republicans", ">\n\nThe article linked above says either party.", ">\n\nInvestigations and making noise is all they got. Not a single piece of legislation they pass has a hope in hell of passing. Until the money runs out and then it is going to be drive the economy into the toilet by defaulting on debt payments.", ">\n\nAnd every subpoena should earn this response: “We are following the guidance of Jim Jordan, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. When he deems it suitable to comply with congressional subpoenas, we will join him.” And since the Jan 6 committee has been disbanded and Gymmy can’t even fulfill his obligation, that’s the end of all compliance.", ">\n\nThey confirmed shut down the committee? Did it release it's findings?", ">\n\nWith a AI’s becoming more and more prevalent, if I was in charge of money from the democratic caucus, I would be creating an AI that could easily scan through these thousand page bills to look for a specific keywords, and become a learning program, that specifically will highlight problems with the bills in regards to undermining democracy.", ">\n\nThat would create longer bills unfortunately." ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?", ">\n\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package?\n\nFor the same reason Santa Claus doesn't join the Easter Bunny for a cup of tea", ">\n\nChasing Amy", ">\n\nI didn't think of that when I typed it, but I SHOULD have!", ">\n\nBuckle up buckaroos!", ">\n\nWell, get ready for a US debt default, huh.", ">\n\nTheir doners don’t want that to happen. It’s just chicken", ">\n\nGym Jordan leading a committee is the stuff of nightmares.", ">\n\nI would love to see a Democrat bring a Motion to Vacate and see what happens.", ">\n\nI believe that rule only applies to republicans", ">\n\nThe article linked above says either party.", ">\n\nInvestigations and making noise is all they got. Not a single piece of legislation they pass has a hope in hell of passing. Until the money runs out and then it is going to be drive the economy into the toilet by defaulting on debt payments.", ">\n\nAnd every subpoena should earn this response: “We are following the guidance of Jim Jordan, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. When he deems it suitable to comply with congressional subpoenas, we will join him.” And since the Jan 6 committee has been disbanded and Gymmy can’t even fulfill his obligation, that’s the end of all compliance.", ">\n\nThey confirmed shut down the committee? Did it release it's findings?", ">\n\nWith a AI’s becoming more and more prevalent, if I was in charge of money from the democratic caucus, I would be creating an AI that could easily scan through these thousand page bills to look for a specific keywords, and become a learning program, that specifically will highlight problems with the bills in regards to undermining democracy.", ">\n\nThat would create longer bills unfortunately.", ">\n\nAI’s are extremely fast, you could create a bill that was 100,000 pages and if we had the right AI it could spit out results within minutes" ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?", ">\n\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package?\n\nFor the same reason Santa Claus doesn't join the Easter Bunny for a cup of tea", ">\n\nChasing Amy", ">\n\nI didn't think of that when I typed it, but I SHOULD have!", ">\n\nBuckle up buckaroos!", ">\n\nWell, get ready for a US debt default, huh.", ">\n\nTheir doners don’t want that to happen. It’s just chicken", ">\n\nGym Jordan leading a committee is the stuff of nightmares.", ">\n\nI would love to see a Democrat bring a Motion to Vacate and see what happens.", ">\n\nI believe that rule only applies to republicans", ">\n\nThe article linked above says either party.", ">\n\nInvestigations and making noise is all they got. Not a single piece of legislation they pass has a hope in hell of passing. Until the money runs out and then it is going to be drive the economy into the toilet by defaulting on debt payments.", ">\n\nAnd every subpoena should earn this response: “We are following the guidance of Jim Jordan, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. When he deems it suitable to comply with congressional subpoenas, we will join him.” And since the Jan 6 committee has been disbanded and Gymmy can’t even fulfill his obligation, that’s the end of all compliance.", ">\n\nThey confirmed shut down the committee? Did it release it's findings?", ">\n\nWith a AI’s becoming more and more prevalent, if I was in charge of money from the democratic caucus, I would be creating an AI that could easily scan through these thousand page bills to look for a specific keywords, and become a learning program, that specifically will highlight problems with the bills in regards to undermining democracy.", ">\n\nThat would create longer bills unfortunately.", ">\n\nAI’s are extremely fast, you could create a bill that was 100,000 pages and if we had the right AI it could spit out results within minutes", ">\n\nAnd it would countered by making the bills longer to the point it would take hours to a day to go through the bills" ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?", ">\n\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package?\n\nFor the same reason Santa Claus doesn't join the Easter Bunny for a cup of tea", ">\n\nChasing Amy", ">\n\nI didn't think of that when I typed it, but I SHOULD have!", ">\n\nBuckle up buckaroos!", ">\n\nWell, get ready for a US debt default, huh.", ">\n\nTheir doners don’t want that to happen. It’s just chicken", ">\n\nGym Jordan leading a committee is the stuff of nightmares.", ">\n\nI would love to see a Democrat bring a Motion to Vacate and see what happens.", ">\n\nI believe that rule only applies to republicans", ">\n\nThe article linked above says either party.", ">\n\nInvestigations and making noise is all they got. Not a single piece of legislation they pass has a hope in hell of passing. Until the money runs out and then it is going to be drive the economy into the toilet by defaulting on debt payments.", ">\n\nAnd every subpoena should earn this response: “We are following the guidance of Jim Jordan, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. When he deems it suitable to comply with congressional subpoenas, we will join him.” And since the Jan 6 committee has been disbanded and Gymmy can’t even fulfill his obligation, that’s the end of all compliance.", ">\n\nThey confirmed shut down the committee? Did it release it's findings?", ">\n\nWith a AI’s becoming more and more prevalent, if I was in charge of money from the democratic caucus, I would be creating an AI that could easily scan through these thousand page bills to look for a specific keywords, and become a learning program, that specifically will highlight problems with the bills in regards to undermining democracy.", ">\n\nThat would create longer bills unfortunately.", ">\n\nAI’s are extremely fast, you could create a bill that was 100,000 pages and if we had the right AI it could spit out results within minutes", ">\n\nAnd it would countered by making the bills longer to the point it would take hours to a day to go through the bills", ">\n\nThe Squeaker of the house has squeaked." ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?", ">\n\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package?\n\nFor the same reason Santa Claus doesn't join the Easter Bunny for a cup of tea", ">\n\nChasing Amy", ">\n\nI didn't think of that when I typed it, but I SHOULD have!", ">\n\nBuckle up buckaroos!", ">\n\nWell, get ready for a US debt default, huh.", ">\n\nTheir doners don’t want that to happen. It’s just chicken", ">\n\nGym Jordan leading a committee is the stuff of nightmares.", ">\n\nI would love to see a Democrat bring a Motion to Vacate and see what happens.", ">\n\nI believe that rule only applies to republicans", ">\n\nThe article linked above says either party.", ">\n\nInvestigations and making noise is all they got. Not a single piece of legislation they pass has a hope in hell of passing. Until the money runs out and then it is going to be drive the economy into the toilet by defaulting on debt payments.", ">\n\nAnd every subpoena should earn this response: “We are following the guidance of Jim Jordan, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. When he deems it suitable to comply with congressional subpoenas, we will join him.” And since the Jan 6 committee has been disbanded and Gymmy can’t even fulfill his obligation, that’s the end of all compliance.", ">\n\nThey confirmed shut down the committee? Did it release it's findings?", ">\n\nWith a AI’s becoming more and more prevalent, if I was in charge of money from the democratic caucus, I would be creating an AI that could easily scan through these thousand page bills to look for a specific keywords, and become a learning program, that specifically will highlight problems with the bills in regards to undermining democracy.", ">\n\nThat would create longer bills unfortunately.", ">\n\nAI’s are extremely fast, you could create a bill that was 100,000 pages and if we had the right AI it could spit out results within minutes", ">\n\nAnd it would countered by making the bills longer to the point it would take hours to a day to go through the bills", ">\n\nThe Squeaker of the house has squeaked.", ">\n\nIt was enteratining and very disturbing. They'll do nothing but investigate Hunter Biden, try to ruin our economy by holding the debt ceiling hostage, the supreme court run by Catholic Conservatives will give a nod to everything illegal, unconstitutional or not. So McCarthy proved that republicans don't care about the country it's all about their little games and power moves. But pay attention because they're going to screw with all of us just like pulling the wings off of flies." ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?", ">\n\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package?\n\nFor the same reason Santa Claus doesn't join the Easter Bunny for a cup of tea", ">\n\nChasing Amy", ">\n\nI didn't think of that when I typed it, but I SHOULD have!", ">\n\nBuckle up buckaroos!", ">\n\nWell, get ready for a US debt default, huh.", ">\n\nTheir doners don’t want that to happen. It’s just chicken", ">\n\nGym Jordan leading a committee is the stuff of nightmares.", ">\n\nI would love to see a Democrat bring a Motion to Vacate and see what happens.", ">\n\nI believe that rule only applies to republicans", ">\n\nThe article linked above says either party.", ">\n\nInvestigations and making noise is all they got. Not a single piece of legislation they pass has a hope in hell of passing. Until the money runs out and then it is going to be drive the economy into the toilet by defaulting on debt payments.", ">\n\nAnd every subpoena should earn this response: “We are following the guidance of Jim Jordan, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. When he deems it suitable to comply with congressional subpoenas, we will join him.” And since the Jan 6 committee has been disbanded and Gymmy can’t even fulfill his obligation, that’s the end of all compliance.", ">\n\nThey confirmed shut down the committee? Did it release it's findings?", ">\n\nWith a AI’s becoming more and more prevalent, if I was in charge of money from the democratic caucus, I would be creating an AI that could easily scan through these thousand page bills to look for a specific keywords, and become a learning program, that specifically will highlight problems with the bills in regards to undermining democracy.", ">\n\nThat would create longer bills unfortunately.", ">\n\nAI’s are extremely fast, you could create a bill that was 100,000 pages and if we had the right AI it could spit out results within minutes", ">\n\nAnd it would countered by making the bills longer to the point it would take hours to a day to go through the bills", ">\n\nThe Squeaker of the house has squeaked.", ">\n\nIt was enteratining and very disturbing. They'll do nothing but investigate Hunter Biden, try to ruin our economy by holding the debt ceiling hostage, the supreme court run by Catholic Conservatives will give a nod to everything illegal, unconstitutional or not. So McCarthy proved that republicans don't care about the country it's all about their little games and power moves. But pay attention because they're going to screw with all of us just like pulling the wings off of flies.", ">\n\nThe only upside to this I can see is the fact that all the deeply stupid shit the GOP wants to do will further alienate anyone left who thought they could still effectively govern. After this clown show falls down around their ears the only people left supporting the GOP will be the \"true believers\" (people too brainwashed or intellectually impaired to know better) so maybe just maybe we can finally relagate the party to the trash heap of history and begin undoing all the fucking damage they have managed to inflict over the years.\nIn my more optistic moments I even find myself hoping this will be the straw that breaks the camels back and forces America to completely overhaul the way we govern ourselves and put a stop to this capitalistic, fascistic death spiral we seem locked into." ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?", ">\n\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package?\n\nFor the same reason Santa Claus doesn't join the Easter Bunny for a cup of tea", ">\n\nChasing Amy", ">\n\nI didn't think of that when I typed it, but I SHOULD have!", ">\n\nBuckle up buckaroos!", ">\n\nWell, get ready for a US debt default, huh.", ">\n\nTheir doners don’t want that to happen. It’s just chicken", ">\n\nGym Jordan leading a committee is the stuff of nightmares.", ">\n\nI would love to see a Democrat bring a Motion to Vacate and see what happens.", ">\n\nI believe that rule only applies to republicans", ">\n\nThe article linked above says either party.", ">\n\nInvestigations and making noise is all they got. Not a single piece of legislation they pass has a hope in hell of passing. Until the money runs out and then it is going to be drive the economy into the toilet by defaulting on debt payments.", ">\n\nAnd every subpoena should earn this response: “We are following the guidance of Jim Jordan, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. When he deems it suitable to comply with congressional subpoenas, we will join him.” And since the Jan 6 committee has been disbanded and Gymmy can’t even fulfill his obligation, that’s the end of all compliance.", ">\n\nThey confirmed shut down the committee? Did it release it's findings?", ">\n\nWith a AI’s becoming more and more prevalent, if I was in charge of money from the democratic caucus, I would be creating an AI that could easily scan through these thousand page bills to look for a specific keywords, and become a learning program, that specifically will highlight problems with the bills in regards to undermining democracy.", ">\n\nThat would create longer bills unfortunately.", ">\n\nAI’s are extremely fast, you could create a bill that was 100,000 pages and if we had the right AI it could spit out results within minutes", ">\n\nAnd it would countered by making the bills longer to the point it would take hours to a day to go through the bills", ">\n\nThe Squeaker of the house has squeaked.", ">\n\nIt was enteratining and very disturbing. They'll do nothing but investigate Hunter Biden, try to ruin our economy by holding the debt ceiling hostage, the supreme court run by Catholic Conservatives will give a nod to everything illegal, unconstitutional or not. So McCarthy proved that republicans don't care about the country it's all about their little games and power moves. But pay attention because they're going to screw with all of us just like pulling the wings off of flies.", ">\n\nThe only upside to this I can see is the fact that all the deeply stupid shit the GOP wants to do will further alienate anyone left who thought they could still effectively govern. After this clown show falls down around their ears the only people left supporting the GOP will be the \"true believers\" (people too brainwashed or intellectually impaired to know better) so maybe just maybe we can finally relagate the party to the trash heap of history and begin undoing all the fucking damage they have managed to inflict over the years.\nIn my more optistic moments I even find myself hoping this will be the straw that breaks the camels back and forces America to completely overhaul the way we govern ourselves and put a stop to this capitalistic, fascistic death spiral we seem locked into.", ">\n\nThis is further proof that the current Republicans in congress are astonishingly out of touch with reality and have no interest in actual governance. They continue to interpret accountability as persecution." ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?", ">\n\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package?\n\nFor the same reason Santa Claus doesn't join the Easter Bunny for a cup of tea", ">\n\nChasing Amy", ">\n\nI didn't think of that when I typed it, but I SHOULD have!", ">\n\nBuckle up buckaroos!", ">\n\nWell, get ready for a US debt default, huh.", ">\n\nTheir doners don’t want that to happen. It’s just chicken", ">\n\nGym Jordan leading a committee is the stuff of nightmares.", ">\n\nI would love to see a Democrat bring a Motion to Vacate and see what happens.", ">\n\nI believe that rule only applies to republicans", ">\n\nThe article linked above says either party.", ">\n\nInvestigations and making noise is all they got. Not a single piece of legislation they pass has a hope in hell of passing. Until the money runs out and then it is going to be drive the economy into the toilet by defaulting on debt payments.", ">\n\nAnd every subpoena should earn this response: “We are following the guidance of Jim Jordan, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. When he deems it suitable to comply with congressional subpoenas, we will join him.” And since the Jan 6 committee has been disbanded and Gymmy can’t even fulfill his obligation, that’s the end of all compliance.", ">\n\nThey confirmed shut down the committee? Did it release it's findings?", ">\n\nWith a AI’s becoming more and more prevalent, if I was in charge of money from the democratic caucus, I would be creating an AI that could easily scan through these thousand page bills to look for a specific keywords, and become a learning program, that specifically will highlight problems with the bills in regards to undermining democracy.", ">\n\nThat would create longer bills unfortunately.", ">\n\nAI’s are extremely fast, you could create a bill that was 100,000 pages and if we had the right AI it could spit out results within minutes", ">\n\nAnd it would countered by making the bills longer to the point it would take hours to a day to go through the bills", ">\n\nThe Squeaker of the house has squeaked.", ">\n\nIt was enteratining and very disturbing. They'll do nothing but investigate Hunter Biden, try to ruin our economy by holding the debt ceiling hostage, the supreme court run by Catholic Conservatives will give a nod to everything illegal, unconstitutional or not. So McCarthy proved that republicans don't care about the country it's all about their little games and power moves. But pay attention because they're going to screw with all of us just like pulling the wings off of flies.", ">\n\nThe only upside to this I can see is the fact that all the deeply stupid shit the GOP wants to do will further alienate anyone left who thought they could still effectively govern. After this clown show falls down around their ears the only people left supporting the GOP will be the \"true believers\" (people too brainwashed or intellectually impaired to know better) so maybe just maybe we can finally relagate the party to the trash heap of history and begin undoing all the fucking damage they have managed to inflict over the years.\nIn my more optistic moments I even find myself hoping this will be the straw that breaks the camels back and forces America to completely overhaul the way we govern ourselves and put a stop to this capitalistic, fascistic death spiral we seem locked into.", ">\n\nThis is further proof that the current Republicans in congress are astonishingly out of touch with reality and have no interest in actual governance. They continue to interpret accountability as persecution.", ">\n\nRule #1: Chase those Jewish Space Lasers....right Majorie?\nRule #2: Legalize teenage sex trafficking...right Matt?\nRule #3: Indict Hunter Biden's laptop...right Kevin?\nRule #4: Coronation of Donald Trump....right Donald?" ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?", ">\n\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package?\n\nFor the same reason Santa Claus doesn't join the Easter Bunny for a cup of tea", ">\n\nChasing Amy", ">\n\nI didn't think of that when I typed it, but I SHOULD have!", ">\n\nBuckle up buckaroos!", ">\n\nWell, get ready for a US debt default, huh.", ">\n\nTheir doners don’t want that to happen. It’s just chicken", ">\n\nGym Jordan leading a committee is the stuff of nightmares.", ">\n\nI would love to see a Democrat bring a Motion to Vacate and see what happens.", ">\n\nI believe that rule only applies to republicans", ">\n\nThe article linked above says either party.", ">\n\nInvestigations and making noise is all they got. Not a single piece of legislation they pass has a hope in hell of passing. Until the money runs out and then it is going to be drive the economy into the toilet by defaulting on debt payments.", ">\n\nAnd every subpoena should earn this response: “We are following the guidance of Jim Jordan, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. When he deems it suitable to comply with congressional subpoenas, we will join him.” And since the Jan 6 committee has been disbanded and Gymmy can’t even fulfill his obligation, that’s the end of all compliance.", ">\n\nThey confirmed shut down the committee? Did it release it's findings?", ">\n\nWith a AI’s becoming more and more prevalent, if I was in charge of money from the democratic caucus, I would be creating an AI that could easily scan through these thousand page bills to look for a specific keywords, and become a learning program, that specifically will highlight problems with the bills in regards to undermining democracy.", ">\n\nThat would create longer bills unfortunately.", ">\n\nAI’s are extremely fast, you could create a bill that was 100,000 pages and if we had the right AI it could spit out results within minutes", ">\n\nAnd it would countered by making the bills longer to the point it would take hours to a day to go through the bills", ">\n\nThe Squeaker of the house has squeaked.", ">\n\nIt was enteratining and very disturbing. They'll do nothing but investigate Hunter Biden, try to ruin our economy by holding the debt ceiling hostage, the supreme court run by Catholic Conservatives will give a nod to everything illegal, unconstitutional or not. So McCarthy proved that republicans don't care about the country it's all about their little games and power moves. But pay attention because they're going to screw with all of us just like pulling the wings off of flies.", ">\n\nThe only upside to this I can see is the fact that all the deeply stupid shit the GOP wants to do will further alienate anyone left who thought they could still effectively govern. After this clown show falls down around their ears the only people left supporting the GOP will be the \"true believers\" (people too brainwashed or intellectually impaired to know better) so maybe just maybe we can finally relagate the party to the trash heap of history and begin undoing all the fucking damage they have managed to inflict over the years.\nIn my more optistic moments I even find myself hoping this will be the straw that breaks the camels back and forces America to completely overhaul the way we govern ourselves and put a stop to this capitalistic, fascistic death spiral we seem locked into.", ">\n\nThis is further proof that the current Republicans in congress are astonishingly out of touch with reality and have no interest in actual governance. They continue to interpret accountability as persecution.", ">\n\nRule #1: Chase those Jewish Space Lasers....right Majorie?\nRule #2: Legalize teenage sex trafficking...right Matt?\nRule #3: Indict Hunter Biden's laptop...right Kevin?\nRule #4: Coronation of Donald Trump....right Donald?", ">\n\nCan someone. Anyone. Give me a good, honest, solid answer here. How long is it going to take?\nIs the country doomed? Has Fascism won? Does anything matter anymore? When are we allowed to collectively panic?" ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?", ">\n\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package?\n\nFor the same reason Santa Claus doesn't join the Easter Bunny for a cup of tea", ">\n\nChasing Amy", ">\n\nI didn't think of that when I typed it, but I SHOULD have!", ">\n\nBuckle up buckaroos!", ">\n\nWell, get ready for a US debt default, huh.", ">\n\nTheir doners don’t want that to happen. It’s just chicken", ">\n\nGym Jordan leading a committee is the stuff of nightmares.", ">\n\nI would love to see a Democrat bring a Motion to Vacate and see what happens.", ">\n\nI believe that rule only applies to republicans", ">\n\nThe article linked above says either party.", ">\n\nInvestigations and making noise is all they got. Not a single piece of legislation they pass has a hope in hell of passing. Until the money runs out and then it is going to be drive the economy into the toilet by defaulting on debt payments.", ">\n\nAnd every subpoena should earn this response: “We are following the guidance of Jim Jordan, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. When he deems it suitable to comply with congressional subpoenas, we will join him.” And since the Jan 6 committee has been disbanded and Gymmy can’t even fulfill his obligation, that’s the end of all compliance.", ">\n\nThey confirmed shut down the committee? Did it release it's findings?", ">\n\nWith a AI’s becoming more and more prevalent, if I was in charge of money from the democratic caucus, I would be creating an AI that could easily scan through these thousand page bills to look for a specific keywords, and become a learning program, that specifically will highlight problems with the bills in regards to undermining democracy.", ">\n\nThat would create longer bills unfortunately.", ">\n\nAI’s are extremely fast, you could create a bill that was 100,000 pages and if we had the right AI it could spit out results within minutes", ">\n\nAnd it would countered by making the bills longer to the point it would take hours to a day to go through the bills", ">\n\nThe Squeaker of the house has squeaked.", ">\n\nIt was enteratining and very disturbing. They'll do nothing but investigate Hunter Biden, try to ruin our economy by holding the debt ceiling hostage, the supreme court run by Catholic Conservatives will give a nod to everything illegal, unconstitutional or not. So McCarthy proved that republicans don't care about the country it's all about their little games and power moves. But pay attention because they're going to screw with all of us just like pulling the wings off of flies.", ">\n\nThe only upside to this I can see is the fact that all the deeply stupid shit the GOP wants to do will further alienate anyone left who thought they could still effectively govern. After this clown show falls down around their ears the only people left supporting the GOP will be the \"true believers\" (people too brainwashed or intellectually impaired to know better) so maybe just maybe we can finally relagate the party to the trash heap of history and begin undoing all the fucking damage they have managed to inflict over the years.\nIn my more optistic moments I even find myself hoping this will be the straw that breaks the camels back and forces America to completely overhaul the way we govern ourselves and put a stop to this capitalistic, fascistic death spiral we seem locked into.", ">\n\nThis is further proof that the current Republicans in congress are astonishingly out of touch with reality and have no interest in actual governance. They continue to interpret accountability as persecution.", ">\n\nRule #1: Chase those Jewish Space Lasers....right Majorie?\nRule #2: Legalize teenage sex trafficking...right Matt?\nRule #3: Indict Hunter Biden's laptop...right Kevin?\nRule #4: Coronation of Donald Trump....right Donald?", ">\n\nCan someone. Anyone. Give me a good, honest, solid answer here. How long is it going to take?\nIs the country doomed? Has Fascism won? Does anything matter anymore? When are we allowed to collectively panic?", ">\n\nWell for anything to get far it has to pass the Democratic Senate and Biden needs to sign it. So a lot of this will just be theater in place of doing something productive. The question will be is will Republicans be over the circus in 2 years or not?" ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?", ">\n\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package?\n\nFor the same reason Santa Claus doesn't join the Easter Bunny for a cup of tea", ">\n\nChasing Amy", ">\n\nI didn't think of that when I typed it, but I SHOULD have!", ">\n\nBuckle up buckaroos!", ">\n\nWell, get ready for a US debt default, huh.", ">\n\nTheir doners don’t want that to happen. It’s just chicken", ">\n\nGym Jordan leading a committee is the stuff of nightmares.", ">\n\nI would love to see a Democrat bring a Motion to Vacate and see what happens.", ">\n\nI believe that rule only applies to republicans", ">\n\nThe article linked above says either party.", ">\n\nInvestigations and making noise is all they got. Not a single piece of legislation they pass has a hope in hell of passing. Until the money runs out and then it is going to be drive the economy into the toilet by defaulting on debt payments.", ">\n\nAnd every subpoena should earn this response: “We are following the guidance of Jim Jordan, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. When he deems it suitable to comply with congressional subpoenas, we will join him.” And since the Jan 6 committee has been disbanded and Gymmy can’t even fulfill his obligation, that’s the end of all compliance.", ">\n\nThey confirmed shut down the committee? Did it release it's findings?", ">\n\nWith a AI’s becoming more and more prevalent, if I was in charge of money from the democratic caucus, I would be creating an AI that could easily scan through these thousand page bills to look for a specific keywords, and become a learning program, that specifically will highlight problems with the bills in regards to undermining democracy.", ">\n\nThat would create longer bills unfortunately.", ">\n\nAI’s are extremely fast, you could create a bill that was 100,000 pages and if we had the right AI it could spit out results within minutes", ">\n\nAnd it would countered by making the bills longer to the point it would take hours to a day to go through the bills", ">\n\nThe Squeaker of the house has squeaked.", ">\n\nIt was enteratining and very disturbing. They'll do nothing but investigate Hunter Biden, try to ruin our economy by holding the debt ceiling hostage, the supreme court run by Catholic Conservatives will give a nod to everything illegal, unconstitutional or not. So McCarthy proved that republicans don't care about the country it's all about their little games and power moves. But pay attention because they're going to screw with all of us just like pulling the wings off of flies.", ">\n\nThe only upside to this I can see is the fact that all the deeply stupid shit the GOP wants to do will further alienate anyone left who thought they could still effectively govern. After this clown show falls down around their ears the only people left supporting the GOP will be the \"true believers\" (people too brainwashed or intellectually impaired to know better) so maybe just maybe we can finally relagate the party to the trash heap of history and begin undoing all the fucking damage they have managed to inflict over the years.\nIn my more optistic moments I even find myself hoping this will be the straw that breaks the camels back and forces America to completely overhaul the way we govern ourselves and put a stop to this capitalistic, fascistic death spiral we seem locked into.", ">\n\nThis is further proof that the current Republicans in congress are astonishingly out of touch with reality and have no interest in actual governance. They continue to interpret accountability as persecution.", ">\n\nRule #1: Chase those Jewish Space Lasers....right Majorie?\nRule #2: Legalize teenage sex trafficking...right Matt?\nRule #3: Indict Hunter Biden's laptop...right Kevin?\nRule #4: Coronation of Donald Trump....right Donald?", ">\n\nCan someone. Anyone. Give me a good, honest, solid answer here. How long is it going to take?\nIs the country doomed? Has Fascism won? Does anything matter anymore? When are we allowed to collectively panic?", ">\n\nWell for anything to get far it has to pass the Democratic Senate and Biden needs to sign it. So a lot of this will just be theater in place of doing something productive. The question will be is will Republicans be over the circus in 2 years or not?", ">\n\nThey can still hold the debt ceiling hostage and later shut down the government without the senate or president." ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?", ">\n\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package?\n\nFor the same reason Santa Claus doesn't join the Easter Bunny for a cup of tea", ">\n\nChasing Amy", ">\n\nI didn't think of that when I typed it, but I SHOULD have!", ">\n\nBuckle up buckaroos!", ">\n\nWell, get ready for a US debt default, huh.", ">\n\nTheir doners don’t want that to happen. It’s just chicken", ">\n\nGym Jordan leading a committee is the stuff of nightmares.", ">\n\nI would love to see a Democrat bring a Motion to Vacate and see what happens.", ">\n\nI believe that rule only applies to republicans", ">\n\nThe article linked above says either party.", ">\n\nInvestigations and making noise is all they got. Not a single piece of legislation they pass has a hope in hell of passing. Until the money runs out and then it is going to be drive the economy into the toilet by defaulting on debt payments.", ">\n\nAnd every subpoena should earn this response: “We are following the guidance of Jim Jordan, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. When he deems it suitable to comply with congressional subpoenas, we will join him.” And since the Jan 6 committee has been disbanded and Gymmy can’t even fulfill his obligation, that’s the end of all compliance.", ">\n\nThey confirmed shut down the committee? Did it release it's findings?", ">\n\nWith a AI’s becoming more and more prevalent, if I was in charge of money from the democratic caucus, I would be creating an AI that could easily scan through these thousand page bills to look for a specific keywords, and become a learning program, that specifically will highlight problems with the bills in regards to undermining democracy.", ">\n\nThat would create longer bills unfortunately.", ">\n\nAI’s are extremely fast, you could create a bill that was 100,000 pages and if we had the right AI it could spit out results within minutes", ">\n\nAnd it would countered by making the bills longer to the point it would take hours to a day to go through the bills", ">\n\nThe Squeaker of the house has squeaked.", ">\n\nIt was enteratining and very disturbing. They'll do nothing but investigate Hunter Biden, try to ruin our economy by holding the debt ceiling hostage, the supreme court run by Catholic Conservatives will give a nod to everything illegal, unconstitutional or not. So McCarthy proved that republicans don't care about the country it's all about their little games and power moves. But pay attention because they're going to screw with all of us just like pulling the wings off of flies.", ">\n\nThe only upside to this I can see is the fact that all the deeply stupid shit the GOP wants to do will further alienate anyone left who thought they could still effectively govern. After this clown show falls down around their ears the only people left supporting the GOP will be the \"true believers\" (people too brainwashed or intellectually impaired to know better) so maybe just maybe we can finally relagate the party to the trash heap of history and begin undoing all the fucking damage they have managed to inflict over the years.\nIn my more optistic moments I even find myself hoping this will be the straw that breaks the camels back and forces America to completely overhaul the way we govern ourselves and put a stop to this capitalistic, fascistic death spiral we seem locked into.", ">\n\nThis is further proof that the current Republicans in congress are astonishingly out of touch with reality and have no interest in actual governance. They continue to interpret accountability as persecution.", ">\n\nRule #1: Chase those Jewish Space Lasers....right Majorie?\nRule #2: Legalize teenage sex trafficking...right Matt?\nRule #3: Indict Hunter Biden's laptop...right Kevin?\nRule #4: Coronation of Donald Trump....right Donald?", ">\n\nCan someone. Anyone. Give me a good, honest, solid answer here. How long is it going to take?\nIs the country doomed? Has Fascism won? Does anything matter anymore? When are we allowed to collectively panic?", ">\n\nWell for anything to get far it has to pass the Democratic Senate and Biden needs to sign it. So a lot of this will just be theater in place of doing something productive. The question will be is will Republicans be over the circus in 2 years or not?", ">\n\nThey can still hold the debt ceiling hostage and later shut down the government without the senate or president.", ">\n\nThere will be a game of chicken over the debt ceiling, but the majority of corporations and the investor class want to avoid a complete economic meltdown. I guess we’ll see if they really do burn it all down." ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?", ">\n\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package?\n\nFor the same reason Santa Claus doesn't join the Easter Bunny for a cup of tea", ">\n\nChasing Amy", ">\n\nI didn't think of that when I typed it, but I SHOULD have!", ">\n\nBuckle up buckaroos!", ">\n\nWell, get ready for a US debt default, huh.", ">\n\nTheir doners don’t want that to happen. It’s just chicken", ">\n\nGym Jordan leading a committee is the stuff of nightmares.", ">\n\nI would love to see a Democrat bring a Motion to Vacate and see what happens.", ">\n\nI believe that rule only applies to republicans", ">\n\nThe article linked above says either party.", ">\n\nInvestigations and making noise is all they got. Not a single piece of legislation they pass has a hope in hell of passing. Until the money runs out and then it is going to be drive the economy into the toilet by defaulting on debt payments.", ">\n\nAnd every subpoena should earn this response: “We are following the guidance of Jim Jordan, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. When he deems it suitable to comply with congressional subpoenas, we will join him.” And since the Jan 6 committee has been disbanded and Gymmy can’t even fulfill his obligation, that’s the end of all compliance.", ">\n\nThey confirmed shut down the committee? Did it release it's findings?", ">\n\nWith a AI’s becoming more and more prevalent, if I was in charge of money from the democratic caucus, I would be creating an AI that could easily scan through these thousand page bills to look for a specific keywords, and become a learning program, that specifically will highlight problems with the bills in regards to undermining democracy.", ">\n\nThat would create longer bills unfortunately.", ">\n\nAI’s are extremely fast, you could create a bill that was 100,000 pages and if we had the right AI it could spit out results within minutes", ">\n\nAnd it would countered by making the bills longer to the point it would take hours to a day to go through the bills", ">\n\nThe Squeaker of the house has squeaked.", ">\n\nIt was enteratining and very disturbing. They'll do nothing but investigate Hunter Biden, try to ruin our economy by holding the debt ceiling hostage, the supreme court run by Catholic Conservatives will give a nod to everything illegal, unconstitutional or not. So McCarthy proved that republicans don't care about the country it's all about their little games and power moves. But pay attention because they're going to screw with all of us just like pulling the wings off of flies.", ">\n\nThe only upside to this I can see is the fact that all the deeply stupid shit the GOP wants to do will further alienate anyone left who thought they could still effectively govern. After this clown show falls down around their ears the only people left supporting the GOP will be the \"true believers\" (people too brainwashed or intellectually impaired to know better) so maybe just maybe we can finally relagate the party to the trash heap of history and begin undoing all the fucking damage they have managed to inflict over the years.\nIn my more optistic moments I even find myself hoping this will be the straw that breaks the camels back and forces America to completely overhaul the way we govern ourselves and put a stop to this capitalistic, fascistic death spiral we seem locked into.", ">\n\nThis is further proof that the current Republicans in congress are astonishingly out of touch with reality and have no interest in actual governance. They continue to interpret accountability as persecution.", ">\n\nRule #1: Chase those Jewish Space Lasers....right Majorie?\nRule #2: Legalize teenage sex trafficking...right Matt?\nRule #3: Indict Hunter Biden's laptop...right Kevin?\nRule #4: Coronation of Donald Trump....right Donald?", ">\n\nCan someone. Anyone. Give me a good, honest, solid answer here. How long is it going to take?\nIs the country doomed? Has Fascism won? Does anything matter anymore? When are we allowed to collectively panic?", ">\n\nWell for anything to get far it has to pass the Democratic Senate and Biden needs to sign it. So a lot of this will just be theater in place of doing something productive. The question will be is will Republicans be over the circus in 2 years or not?", ">\n\nThey can still hold the debt ceiling hostage and later shut down the government without the senate or president.", ">\n\nThere will be a game of chicken over the debt ceiling, but the majority of corporations and the investor class want to avoid a complete economic meltdown. I guess we’ll see if they really do burn it all down.", ">\n\nHow the hell did he pull that off?" ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?", ">\n\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package?\n\nFor the same reason Santa Claus doesn't join the Easter Bunny for a cup of tea", ">\n\nChasing Amy", ">\n\nI didn't think of that when I typed it, but I SHOULD have!", ">\n\nBuckle up buckaroos!", ">\n\nWell, get ready for a US debt default, huh.", ">\n\nTheir doners don’t want that to happen. It’s just chicken", ">\n\nGym Jordan leading a committee is the stuff of nightmares.", ">\n\nI would love to see a Democrat bring a Motion to Vacate and see what happens.", ">\n\nI believe that rule only applies to republicans", ">\n\nThe article linked above says either party.", ">\n\nInvestigations and making noise is all they got. Not a single piece of legislation they pass has a hope in hell of passing. Until the money runs out and then it is going to be drive the economy into the toilet by defaulting on debt payments.", ">\n\nAnd every subpoena should earn this response: “We are following the guidance of Jim Jordan, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. When he deems it suitable to comply with congressional subpoenas, we will join him.” And since the Jan 6 committee has been disbanded and Gymmy can’t even fulfill his obligation, that’s the end of all compliance.", ">\n\nThey confirmed shut down the committee? Did it release it's findings?", ">\n\nWith a AI’s becoming more and more prevalent, if I was in charge of money from the democratic caucus, I would be creating an AI that could easily scan through these thousand page bills to look for a specific keywords, and become a learning program, that specifically will highlight problems with the bills in regards to undermining democracy.", ">\n\nThat would create longer bills unfortunately.", ">\n\nAI’s are extremely fast, you could create a bill that was 100,000 pages and if we had the right AI it could spit out results within minutes", ">\n\nAnd it would countered by making the bills longer to the point it would take hours to a day to go through the bills", ">\n\nThe Squeaker of the house has squeaked.", ">\n\nIt was enteratining and very disturbing. They'll do nothing but investigate Hunter Biden, try to ruin our economy by holding the debt ceiling hostage, the supreme court run by Catholic Conservatives will give a nod to everything illegal, unconstitutional or not. So McCarthy proved that republicans don't care about the country it's all about their little games and power moves. But pay attention because they're going to screw with all of us just like pulling the wings off of flies.", ">\n\nThe only upside to this I can see is the fact that all the deeply stupid shit the GOP wants to do will further alienate anyone left who thought they could still effectively govern. After this clown show falls down around their ears the only people left supporting the GOP will be the \"true believers\" (people too brainwashed or intellectually impaired to know better) so maybe just maybe we can finally relagate the party to the trash heap of history and begin undoing all the fucking damage they have managed to inflict over the years.\nIn my more optistic moments I even find myself hoping this will be the straw that breaks the camels back and forces America to completely overhaul the way we govern ourselves and put a stop to this capitalistic, fascistic death spiral we seem locked into.", ">\n\nThis is further proof that the current Republicans in congress are astonishingly out of touch with reality and have no interest in actual governance. They continue to interpret accountability as persecution.", ">\n\nRule #1: Chase those Jewish Space Lasers....right Majorie?\nRule #2: Legalize teenage sex trafficking...right Matt?\nRule #3: Indict Hunter Biden's laptop...right Kevin?\nRule #4: Coronation of Donald Trump....right Donald?", ">\n\nCan someone. Anyone. Give me a good, honest, solid answer here. How long is it going to take?\nIs the country doomed? Has Fascism won? Does anything matter anymore? When are we allowed to collectively panic?", ">\n\nWell for anything to get far it has to pass the Democratic Senate and Biden needs to sign it. So a lot of this will just be theater in place of doing something productive. The question will be is will Republicans be over the circus in 2 years or not?", ">\n\nThey can still hold the debt ceiling hostage and later shut down the government without the senate or president.", ">\n\nThere will be a game of chicken over the debt ceiling, but the majority of corporations and the investor class want to avoid a complete economic meltdown. I guess we’ll see if they really do burn it all down.", ">\n\nHow the hell did he pull that off?", ">\n\nSold his soul to the lowest bidder." ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?", ">\n\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package?\n\nFor the same reason Santa Claus doesn't join the Easter Bunny for a cup of tea", ">\n\nChasing Amy", ">\n\nI didn't think of that when I typed it, but I SHOULD have!", ">\n\nBuckle up buckaroos!", ">\n\nWell, get ready for a US debt default, huh.", ">\n\nTheir doners don’t want that to happen. It’s just chicken", ">\n\nGym Jordan leading a committee is the stuff of nightmares.", ">\n\nI would love to see a Democrat bring a Motion to Vacate and see what happens.", ">\n\nI believe that rule only applies to republicans", ">\n\nThe article linked above says either party.", ">\n\nInvestigations and making noise is all they got. Not a single piece of legislation they pass has a hope in hell of passing. Until the money runs out and then it is going to be drive the economy into the toilet by defaulting on debt payments.", ">\n\nAnd every subpoena should earn this response: “We are following the guidance of Jim Jordan, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. When he deems it suitable to comply with congressional subpoenas, we will join him.” And since the Jan 6 committee has been disbanded and Gymmy can’t even fulfill his obligation, that’s the end of all compliance.", ">\n\nThey confirmed shut down the committee? Did it release it's findings?", ">\n\nWith a AI’s becoming more and more prevalent, if I was in charge of money from the democratic caucus, I would be creating an AI that could easily scan through these thousand page bills to look for a specific keywords, and become a learning program, that specifically will highlight problems with the bills in regards to undermining democracy.", ">\n\nThat would create longer bills unfortunately.", ">\n\nAI’s are extremely fast, you could create a bill that was 100,000 pages and if we had the right AI it could spit out results within minutes", ">\n\nAnd it would countered by making the bills longer to the point it would take hours to a day to go through the bills", ">\n\nThe Squeaker of the house has squeaked.", ">\n\nIt was enteratining and very disturbing. They'll do nothing but investigate Hunter Biden, try to ruin our economy by holding the debt ceiling hostage, the supreme court run by Catholic Conservatives will give a nod to everything illegal, unconstitutional or not. So McCarthy proved that republicans don't care about the country it's all about their little games and power moves. But pay attention because they're going to screw with all of us just like pulling the wings off of flies.", ">\n\nThe only upside to this I can see is the fact that all the deeply stupid shit the GOP wants to do will further alienate anyone left who thought they could still effectively govern. After this clown show falls down around their ears the only people left supporting the GOP will be the \"true believers\" (people too brainwashed or intellectually impaired to know better) so maybe just maybe we can finally relagate the party to the trash heap of history and begin undoing all the fucking damage they have managed to inflict over the years.\nIn my more optistic moments I even find myself hoping this will be the straw that breaks the camels back and forces America to completely overhaul the way we govern ourselves and put a stop to this capitalistic, fascistic death spiral we seem locked into.", ">\n\nThis is further proof that the current Republicans in congress are astonishingly out of touch with reality and have no interest in actual governance. They continue to interpret accountability as persecution.", ">\n\nRule #1: Chase those Jewish Space Lasers....right Majorie?\nRule #2: Legalize teenage sex trafficking...right Matt?\nRule #3: Indict Hunter Biden's laptop...right Kevin?\nRule #4: Coronation of Donald Trump....right Donald?", ">\n\nCan someone. Anyone. Give me a good, honest, solid answer here. How long is it going to take?\nIs the country doomed? Has Fascism won? Does anything matter anymore? When are we allowed to collectively panic?", ">\n\nWell for anything to get far it has to pass the Democratic Senate and Biden needs to sign it. So a lot of this will just be theater in place of doing something productive. The question will be is will Republicans be over the circus in 2 years or not?", ">\n\nThey can still hold the debt ceiling hostage and later shut down the government without the senate or president.", ">\n\nThere will be a game of chicken over the debt ceiling, but the majority of corporations and the investor class want to avoid a complete economic meltdown. I guess we’ll see if they really do burn it all down.", ">\n\nHow the hell did he pull that off?", ">\n\nSold his soul to the lowest bidder.", ">\n\nLittle man with his penis extender" ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?", ">\n\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package?\n\nFor the same reason Santa Claus doesn't join the Easter Bunny for a cup of tea", ">\n\nChasing Amy", ">\n\nI didn't think of that when I typed it, but I SHOULD have!", ">\n\nBuckle up buckaroos!", ">\n\nWell, get ready for a US debt default, huh.", ">\n\nTheir doners don’t want that to happen. It’s just chicken", ">\n\nGym Jordan leading a committee is the stuff of nightmares.", ">\n\nI would love to see a Democrat bring a Motion to Vacate and see what happens.", ">\n\nI believe that rule only applies to republicans", ">\n\nThe article linked above says either party.", ">\n\nInvestigations and making noise is all they got. Not a single piece of legislation they pass has a hope in hell of passing. Until the money runs out and then it is going to be drive the economy into the toilet by defaulting on debt payments.", ">\n\nAnd every subpoena should earn this response: “We are following the guidance of Jim Jordan, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. When he deems it suitable to comply with congressional subpoenas, we will join him.” And since the Jan 6 committee has been disbanded and Gymmy can’t even fulfill his obligation, that’s the end of all compliance.", ">\n\nThey confirmed shut down the committee? Did it release it's findings?", ">\n\nWith a AI’s becoming more and more prevalent, if I was in charge of money from the democratic caucus, I would be creating an AI that could easily scan through these thousand page bills to look for a specific keywords, and become a learning program, that specifically will highlight problems with the bills in regards to undermining democracy.", ">\n\nThat would create longer bills unfortunately.", ">\n\nAI’s are extremely fast, you could create a bill that was 100,000 pages and if we had the right AI it could spit out results within minutes", ">\n\nAnd it would countered by making the bills longer to the point it would take hours to a day to go through the bills", ">\n\nThe Squeaker of the house has squeaked.", ">\n\nIt was enteratining and very disturbing. They'll do nothing but investigate Hunter Biden, try to ruin our economy by holding the debt ceiling hostage, the supreme court run by Catholic Conservatives will give a nod to everything illegal, unconstitutional or not. So McCarthy proved that republicans don't care about the country it's all about their little games and power moves. But pay attention because they're going to screw with all of us just like pulling the wings off of flies.", ">\n\nThe only upside to this I can see is the fact that all the deeply stupid shit the GOP wants to do will further alienate anyone left who thought they could still effectively govern. After this clown show falls down around their ears the only people left supporting the GOP will be the \"true believers\" (people too brainwashed or intellectually impaired to know better) so maybe just maybe we can finally relagate the party to the trash heap of history and begin undoing all the fucking damage they have managed to inflict over the years.\nIn my more optistic moments I even find myself hoping this will be the straw that breaks the camels back and forces America to completely overhaul the way we govern ourselves and put a stop to this capitalistic, fascistic death spiral we seem locked into.", ">\n\nThis is further proof that the current Republicans in congress are astonishingly out of touch with reality and have no interest in actual governance. They continue to interpret accountability as persecution.", ">\n\nRule #1: Chase those Jewish Space Lasers....right Majorie?\nRule #2: Legalize teenage sex trafficking...right Matt?\nRule #3: Indict Hunter Biden's laptop...right Kevin?\nRule #4: Coronation of Donald Trump....right Donald?", ">\n\nCan someone. Anyone. Give me a good, honest, solid answer here. How long is it going to take?\nIs the country doomed? Has Fascism won? Does anything matter anymore? When are we allowed to collectively panic?", ">\n\nWell for anything to get far it has to pass the Democratic Senate and Biden needs to sign it. So a lot of this will just be theater in place of doing something productive. The question will be is will Republicans be over the circus in 2 years or not?", ">\n\nThey can still hold the debt ceiling hostage and later shut down the government without the senate or president.", ">\n\nThere will be a game of chicken over the debt ceiling, but the majority of corporations and the investor class want to avoid a complete economic meltdown. I guess we’ll see if they really do burn it all down.", ">\n\nHow the hell did he pull that off?", ">\n\nSold his soul to the lowest bidder.", ">\n\nLittle man with his penis extender", ">\n\nWe don't have any idea what promises were made or what gentleman's handshakes were made”\nThat implies that the Republicans are gentlemen which I highly doubt that is the case" ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?", ">\n\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package?\n\nFor the same reason Santa Claus doesn't join the Easter Bunny for a cup of tea", ">\n\nChasing Amy", ">\n\nI didn't think of that when I typed it, but I SHOULD have!", ">\n\nBuckle up buckaroos!", ">\n\nWell, get ready for a US debt default, huh.", ">\n\nTheir doners don’t want that to happen. It’s just chicken", ">\n\nGym Jordan leading a committee is the stuff of nightmares.", ">\n\nI would love to see a Democrat bring a Motion to Vacate and see what happens.", ">\n\nI believe that rule only applies to republicans", ">\n\nThe article linked above says either party.", ">\n\nInvestigations and making noise is all they got. Not a single piece of legislation they pass has a hope in hell of passing. Until the money runs out and then it is going to be drive the economy into the toilet by defaulting on debt payments.", ">\n\nAnd every subpoena should earn this response: “We are following the guidance of Jim Jordan, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. When he deems it suitable to comply with congressional subpoenas, we will join him.” And since the Jan 6 committee has been disbanded and Gymmy can’t even fulfill his obligation, that’s the end of all compliance.", ">\n\nThey confirmed shut down the committee? Did it release it's findings?", ">\n\nWith a AI’s becoming more and more prevalent, if I was in charge of money from the democratic caucus, I would be creating an AI that could easily scan through these thousand page bills to look for a specific keywords, and become a learning program, that specifically will highlight problems with the bills in regards to undermining democracy.", ">\n\nThat would create longer bills unfortunately.", ">\n\nAI’s are extremely fast, you could create a bill that was 100,000 pages and if we had the right AI it could spit out results within minutes", ">\n\nAnd it would countered by making the bills longer to the point it would take hours to a day to go through the bills", ">\n\nThe Squeaker of the house has squeaked.", ">\n\nIt was enteratining and very disturbing. They'll do nothing but investigate Hunter Biden, try to ruin our economy by holding the debt ceiling hostage, the supreme court run by Catholic Conservatives will give a nod to everything illegal, unconstitutional or not. So McCarthy proved that republicans don't care about the country it's all about their little games and power moves. But pay attention because they're going to screw with all of us just like pulling the wings off of flies.", ">\n\nThe only upside to this I can see is the fact that all the deeply stupid shit the GOP wants to do will further alienate anyone left who thought they could still effectively govern. After this clown show falls down around their ears the only people left supporting the GOP will be the \"true believers\" (people too brainwashed or intellectually impaired to know better) so maybe just maybe we can finally relagate the party to the trash heap of history and begin undoing all the fucking damage they have managed to inflict over the years.\nIn my more optistic moments I even find myself hoping this will be the straw that breaks the camels back and forces America to completely overhaul the way we govern ourselves and put a stop to this capitalistic, fascistic death spiral we seem locked into.", ">\n\nThis is further proof that the current Republicans in congress are astonishingly out of touch with reality and have no interest in actual governance. They continue to interpret accountability as persecution.", ">\n\nRule #1: Chase those Jewish Space Lasers....right Majorie?\nRule #2: Legalize teenage sex trafficking...right Matt?\nRule #3: Indict Hunter Biden's laptop...right Kevin?\nRule #4: Coronation of Donald Trump....right Donald?", ">\n\nCan someone. Anyone. Give me a good, honest, solid answer here. How long is it going to take?\nIs the country doomed? Has Fascism won? Does anything matter anymore? When are we allowed to collectively panic?", ">\n\nWell for anything to get far it has to pass the Democratic Senate and Biden needs to sign it. So a lot of this will just be theater in place of doing something productive. The question will be is will Republicans be over the circus in 2 years or not?", ">\n\nThey can still hold the debt ceiling hostage and later shut down the government without the senate or president.", ">\n\nThere will be a game of chicken over the debt ceiling, but the majority of corporations and the investor class want to avoid a complete economic meltdown. I guess we’ll see if they really do burn it all down.", ">\n\nHow the hell did he pull that off?", ">\n\nSold his soul to the lowest bidder.", ">\n\nLittle man with his penis extender", ">\n\nWe don't have any idea what promises were made or what gentleman's handshakes were made”\nThat implies that the Republicans are gentlemen which I highly doubt that is the case", ">\n\n\"...These rules are not a serious attempt at governing. They're essentially a ransom note to America from the extreme right.\"" ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?", ">\n\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package?\n\nFor the same reason Santa Claus doesn't join the Easter Bunny for a cup of tea", ">\n\nChasing Amy", ">\n\nI didn't think of that when I typed it, but I SHOULD have!", ">\n\nBuckle up buckaroos!", ">\n\nWell, get ready for a US debt default, huh.", ">\n\nTheir doners don’t want that to happen. It’s just chicken", ">\n\nGym Jordan leading a committee is the stuff of nightmares.", ">\n\nI would love to see a Democrat bring a Motion to Vacate and see what happens.", ">\n\nI believe that rule only applies to republicans", ">\n\nThe article linked above says either party.", ">\n\nInvestigations and making noise is all they got. Not a single piece of legislation they pass has a hope in hell of passing. Until the money runs out and then it is going to be drive the economy into the toilet by defaulting on debt payments.", ">\n\nAnd every subpoena should earn this response: “We are following the guidance of Jim Jordan, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. When he deems it suitable to comply with congressional subpoenas, we will join him.” And since the Jan 6 committee has been disbanded and Gymmy can’t even fulfill his obligation, that’s the end of all compliance.", ">\n\nThey confirmed shut down the committee? Did it release it's findings?", ">\n\nWith a AI’s becoming more and more prevalent, if I was in charge of money from the democratic caucus, I would be creating an AI that could easily scan through these thousand page bills to look for a specific keywords, and become a learning program, that specifically will highlight problems with the bills in regards to undermining democracy.", ">\n\nThat would create longer bills unfortunately.", ">\n\nAI’s are extremely fast, you could create a bill that was 100,000 pages and if we had the right AI it could spit out results within minutes", ">\n\nAnd it would countered by making the bills longer to the point it would take hours to a day to go through the bills", ">\n\nThe Squeaker of the house has squeaked.", ">\n\nIt was enteratining and very disturbing. They'll do nothing but investigate Hunter Biden, try to ruin our economy by holding the debt ceiling hostage, the supreme court run by Catholic Conservatives will give a nod to everything illegal, unconstitutional or not. So McCarthy proved that republicans don't care about the country it's all about their little games and power moves. But pay attention because they're going to screw with all of us just like pulling the wings off of flies.", ">\n\nThe only upside to this I can see is the fact that all the deeply stupid shit the GOP wants to do will further alienate anyone left who thought they could still effectively govern. After this clown show falls down around their ears the only people left supporting the GOP will be the \"true believers\" (people too brainwashed or intellectually impaired to know better) so maybe just maybe we can finally relagate the party to the trash heap of history and begin undoing all the fucking damage they have managed to inflict over the years.\nIn my more optistic moments I even find myself hoping this will be the straw that breaks the camels back and forces America to completely overhaul the way we govern ourselves and put a stop to this capitalistic, fascistic death spiral we seem locked into.", ">\n\nThis is further proof that the current Republicans in congress are astonishingly out of touch with reality and have no interest in actual governance. They continue to interpret accountability as persecution.", ">\n\nRule #1: Chase those Jewish Space Lasers....right Majorie?\nRule #2: Legalize teenage sex trafficking...right Matt?\nRule #3: Indict Hunter Biden's laptop...right Kevin?\nRule #4: Coronation of Donald Trump....right Donald?", ">\n\nCan someone. Anyone. Give me a good, honest, solid answer here. How long is it going to take?\nIs the country doomed? Has Fascism won? Does anything matter anymore? When are we allowed to collectively panic?", ">\n\nWell for anything to get far it has to pass the Democratic Senate and Biden needs to sign it. So a lot of this will just be theater in place of doing something productive. The question will be is will Republicans be over the circus in 2 years or not?", ">\n\nThey can still hold the debt ceiling hostage and later shut down the government without the senate or president.", ">\n\nThere will be a game of chicken over the debt ceiling, but the majority of corporations and the investor class want to avoid a complete economic meltdown. I guess we’ll see if they really do burn it all down.", ">\n\nHow the hell did he pull that off?", ">\n\nSold his soul to the lowest bidder.", ">\n\nLittle man with his penis extender", ">\n\nWe don't have any idea what promises were made or what gentleman's handshakes were made”\nThat implies that the Republicans are gentlemen which I highly doubt that is the case", ">\n\n\"...These rules are not a serious attempt at governing. They're essentially a ransom note to America from the extreme right.\"", ">\n\nWait, all you guys who were telling me there were \"moderates\" left in the party were lying?" ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?", ">\n\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package?\n\nFor the same reason Santa Claus doesn't join the Easter Bunny for a cup of tea", ">\n\nChasing Amy", ">\n\nI didn't think of that when I typed it, but I SHOULD have!", ">\n\nBuckle up buckaroos!", ">\n\nWell, get ready for a US debt default, huh.", ">\n\nTheir doners don’t want that to happen. It’s just chicken", ">\n\nGym Jordan leading a committee is the stuff of nightmares.", ">\n\nI would love to see a Democrat bring a Motion to Vacate and see what happens.", ">\n\nI believe that rule only applies to republicans", ">\n\nThe article linked above says either party.", ">\n\nInvestigations and making noise is all they got. Not a single piece of legislation they pass has a hope in hell of passing. Until the money runs out and then it is going to be drive the economy into the toilet by defaulting on debt payments.", ">\n\nAnd every subpoena should earn this response: “We are following the guidance of Jim Jordan, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. When he deems it suitable to comply with congressional subpoenas, we will join him.” And since the Jan 6 committee has been disbanded and Gymmy can’t even fulfill his obligation, that’s the end of all compliance.", ">\n\nThey confirmed shut down the committee? Did it release it's findings?", ">\n\nWith a AI’s becoming more and more prevalent, if I was in charge of money from the democratic caucus, I would be creating an AI that could easily scan through these thousand page bills to look for a specific keywords, and become a learning program, that specifically will highlight problems with the bills in regards to undermining democracy.", ">\n\nThat would create longer bills unfortunately.", ">\n\nAI’s are extremely fast, you could create a bill that was 100,000 pages and if we had the right AI it could spit out results within minutes", ">\n\nAnd it would countered by making the bills longer to the point it would take hours to a day to go through the bills", ">\n\nThe Squeaker of the house has squeaked.", ">\n\nIt was enteratining and very disturbing. They'll do nothing but investigate Hunter Biden, try to ruin our economy by holding the debt ceiling hostage, the supreme court run by Catholic Conservatives will give a nod to everything illegal, unconstitutional or not. So McCarthy proved that republicans don't care about the country it's all about their little games and power moves. But pay attention because they're going to screw with all of us just like pulling the wings off of flies.", ">\n\nThe only upside to this I can see is the fact that all the deeply stupid shit the GOP wants to do will further alienate anyone left who thought they could still effectively govern. After this clown show falls down around their ears the only people left supporting the GOP will be the \"true believers\" (people too brainwashed or intellectually impaired to know better) so maybe just maybe we can finally relagate the party to the trash heap of history and begin undoing all the fucking damage they have managed to inflict over the years.\nIn my more optistic moments I even find myself hoping this will be the straw that breaks the camels back and forces America to completely overhaul the way we govern ourselves and put a stop to this capitalistic, fascistic death spiral we seem locked into.", ">\n\nThis is further proof that the current Republicans in congress are astonishingly out of touch with reality and have no interest in actual governance. They continue to interpret accountability as persecution.", ">\n\nRule #1: Chase those Jewish Space Lasers....right Majorie?\nRule #2: Legalize teenage sex trafficking...right Matt?\nRule #3: Indict Hunter Biden's laptop...right Kevin?\nRule #4: Coronation of Donald Trump....right Donald?", ">\n\nCan someone. Anyone. Give me a good, honest, solid answer here. How long is it going to take?\nIs the country doomed? Has Fascism won? Does anything matter anymore? When are we allowed to collectively panic?", ">\n\nWell for anything to get far it has to pass the Democratic Senate and Biden needs to sign it. So a lot of this will just be theater in place of doing something productive. The question will be is will Republicans be over the circus in 2 years or not?", ">\n\nThey can still hold the debt ceiling hostage and later shut down the government without the senate or president.", ">\n\nThere will be a game of chicken over the debt ceiling, but the majority of corporations and the investor class want to avoid a complete economic meltdown. I guess we’ll see if they really do burn it all down.", ">\n\nHow the hell did he pull that off?", ">\n\nSold his soul to the lowest bidder.", ">\n\nLittle man with his penis extender", ">\n\nWe don't have any idea what promises were made or what gentleman's handshakes were made”\nThat implies that the Republicans are gentlemen which I highly doubt that is the case", ">\n\n\"...These rules are not a serious attempt at governing. They're essentially a ransom note to America from the extreme right.\"", ">\n\nWait, all you guys who were telling me there were \"moderates\" left in the party were lying?", ">\n\nIt amazes me that politicians in our country will decry reducing our military spending when our budget is more than Double the next highest spending country. It's like a third of our fucking budget!" ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?", ">\n\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package?\n\nFor the same reason Santa Claus doesn't join the Easter Bunny for a cup of tea", ">\n\nChasing Amy", ">\n\nI didn't think of that when I typed it, but I SHOULD have!", ">\n\nBuckle up buckaroos!", ">\n\nWell, get ready for a US debt default, huh.", ">\n\nTheir doners don’t want that to happen. It’s just chicken", ">\n\nGym Jordan leading a committee is the stuff of nightmares.", ">\n\nI would love to see a Democrat bring a Motion to Vacate and see what happens.", ">\n\nI believe that rule only applies to republicans", ">\n\nThe article linked above says either party.", ">\n\nInvestigations and making noise is all they got. Not a single piece of legislation they pass has a hope in hell of passing. Until the money runs out and then it is going to be drive the economy into the toilet by defaulting on debt payments.", ">\n\nAnd every subpoena should earn this response: “We are following the guidance of Jim Jordan, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. When he deems it suitable to comply with congressional subpoenas, we will join him.” And since the Jan 6 committee has been disbanded and Gymmy can’t even fulfill his obligation, that’s the end of all compliance.", ">\n\nThey confirmed shut down the committee? Did it release it's findings?", ">\n\nWith a AI’s becoming more and more prevalent, if I was in charge of money from the democratic caucus, I would be creating an AI that could easily scan through these thousand page bills to look for a specific keywords, and become a learning program, that specifically will highlight problems with the bills in regards to undermining democracy.", ">\n\nThat would create longer bills unfortunately.", ">\n\nAI’s are extremely fast, you could create a bill that was 100,000 pages and if we had the right AI it could spit out results within minutes", ">\n\nAnd it would countered by making the bills longer to the point it would take hours to a day to go through the bills", ">\n\nThe Squeaker of the house has squeaked.", ">\n\nIt was enteratining and very disturbing. They'll do nothing but investigate Hunter Biden, try to ruin our economy by holding the debt ceiling hostage, the supreme court run by Catholic Conservatives will give a nod to everything illegal, unconstitutional or not. So McCarthy proved that republicans don't care about the country it's all about their little games and power moves. But pay attention because they're going to screw with all of us just like pulling the wings off of flies.", ">\n\nThe only upside to this I can see is the fact that all the deeply stupid shit the GOP wants to do will further alienate anyone left who thought they could still effectively govern. After this clown show falls down around their ears the only people left supporting the GOP will be the \"true believers\" (people too brainwashed or intellectually impaired to know better) so maybe just maybe we can finally relagate the party to the trash heap of history and begin undoing all the fucking damage they have managed to inflict over the years.\nIn my more optistic moments I even find myself hoping this will be the straw that breaks the camels back and forces America to completely overhaul the way we govern ourselves and put a stop to this capitalistic, fascistic death spiral we seem locked into.", ">\n\nThis is further proof that the current Republicans in congress are astonishingly out of touch with reality and have no interest in actual governance. They continue to interpret accountability as persecution.", ">\n\nRule #1: Chase those Jewish Space Lasers....right Majorie?\nRule #2: Legalize teenage sex trafficking...right Matt?\nRule #3: Indict Hunter Biden's laptop...right Kevin?\nRule #4: Coronation of Donald Trump....right Donald?", ">\n\nCan someone. Anyone. Give me a good, honest, solid answer here. How long is it going to take?\nIs the country doomed? Has Fascism won? Does anything matter anymore? When are we allowed to collectively panic?", ">\n\nWell for anything to get far it has to pass the Democratic Senate and Biden needs to sign it. So a lot of this will just be theater in place of doing something productive. The question will be is will Republicans be over the circus in 2 years or not?", ">\n\nThey can still hold the debt ceiling hostage and later shut down the government without the senate or president.", ">\n\nThere will be a game of chicken over the debt ceiling, but the majority of corporations and the investor class want to avoid a complete economic meltdown. I guess we’ll see if they really do burn it all down.", ">\n\nHow the hell did he pull that off?", ">\n\nSold his soul to the lowest bidder.", ">\n\nLittle man with his penis extender", ">\n\nWe don't have any idea what promises were made or what gentleman's handshakes were made”\nThat implies that the Republicans are gentlemen which I highly doubt that is the case", ">\n\n\"...These rules are not a serious attempt at governing. They're essentially a ransom note to America from the extreme right.\"", ">\n\nWait, all you guys who were telling me there were \"moderates\" left in the party were lying?", ">\n\nIt amazes me that politicians in our country will decry reducing our military spending when our budget is more than Double the next highest spending country. It's like a third of our fucking budget!", ">\n\nLet the empty poo-flinging begin. If they're fighting each other for the sound bite on Faux, that's less damage to the nation and amusement for the sane. Nothing much will get done, but 2 more years lost where we might have tried to address the many problems facing the country.\nBut hey, this is apparently what a lot of people voted for." ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?", ">\n\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package?\n\nFor the same reason Santa Claus doesn't join the Easter Bunny for a cup of tea", ">\n\nChasing Amy", ">\n\nI didn't think of that when I typed it, but I SHOULD have!", ">\n\nBuckle up buckaroos!", ">\n\nWell, get ready for a US debt default, huh.", ">\n\nTheir doners don’t want that to happen. It’s just chicken", ">\n\nGym Jordan leading a committee is the stuff of nightmares.", ">\n\nI would love to see a Democrat bring a Motion to Vacate and see what happens.", ">\n\nI believe that rule only applies to republicans", ">\n\nThe article linked above says either party.", ">\n\nInvestigations and making noise is all they got. Not a single piece of legislation they pass has a hope in hell of passing. Until the money runs out and then it is going to be drive the economy into the toilet by defaulting on debt payments.", ">\n\nAnd every subpoena should earn this response: “We are following the guidance of Jim Jordan, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. When he deems it suitable to comply with congressional subpoenas, we will join him.” And since the Jan 6 committee has been disbanded and Gymmy can’t even fulfill his obligation, that’s the end of all compliance.", ">\n\nThey confirmed shut down the committee? Did it release it's findings?", ">\n\nWith a AI’s becoming more and more prevalent, if I was in charge of money from the democratic caucus, I would be creating an AI that could easily scan through these thousand page bills to look for a specific keywords, and become a learning program, that specifically will highlight problems with the bills in regards to undermining democracy.", ">\n\nThat would create longer bills unfortunately.", ">\n\nAI’s are extremely fast, you could create a bill that was 100,000 pages and if we had the right AI it could spit out results within minutes", ">\n\nAnd it would countered by making the bills longer to the point it would take hours to a day to go through the bills", ">\n\nThe Squeaker of the house has squeaked.", ">\n\nIt was enteratining and very disturbing. They'll do nothing but investigate Hunter Biden, try to ruin our economy by holding the debt ceiling hostage, the supreme court run by Catholic Conservatives will give a nod to everything illegal, unconstitutional or not. So McCarthy proved that republicans don't care about the country it's all about their little games and power moves. But pay attention because they're going to screw with all of us just like pulling the wings off of flies.", ">\n\nThe only upside to this I can see is the fact that all the deeply stupid shit the GOP wants to do will further alienate anyone left who thought they could still effectively govern. After this clown show falls down around their ears the only people left supporting the GOP will be the \"true believers\" (people too brainwashed or intellectually impaired to know better) so maybe just maybe we can finally relagate the party to the trash heap of history and begin undoing all the fucking damage they have managed to inflict over the years.\nIn my more optistic moments I even find myself hoping this will be the straw that breaks the camels back and forces America to completely overhaul the way we govern ourselves and put a stop to this capitalistic, fascistic death spiral we seem locked into.", ">\n\nThis is further proof that the current Republicans in congress are astonishingly out of touch with reality and have no interest in actual governance. They continue to interpret accountability as persecution.", ">\n\nRule #1: Chase those Jewish Space Lasers....right Majorie?\nRule #2: Legalize teenage sex trafficking...right Matt?\nRule #3: Indict Hunter Biden's laptop...right Kevin?\nRule #4: Coronation of Donald Trump....right Donald?", ">\n\nCan someone. Anyone. Give me a good, honest, solid answer here. How long is it going to take?\nIs the country doomed? Has Fascism won? Does anything matter anymore? When are we allowed to collectively panic?", ">\n\nWell for anything to get far it has to pass the Democratic Senate and Biden needs to sign it. So a lot of this will just be theater in place of doing something productive. The question will be is will Republicans be over the circus in 2 years or not?", ">\n\nThey can still hold the debt ceiling hostage and later shut down the government without the senate or president.", ">\n\nThere will be a game of chicken over the debt ceiling, but the majority of corporations and the investor class want to avoid a complete economic meltdown. I guess we’ll see if they really do burn it all down.", ">\n\nHow the hell did he pull that off?", ">\n\nSold his soul to the lowest bidder.", ">\n\nLittle man with his penis extender", ">\n\nWe don't have any idea what promises were made or what gentleman's handshakes were made”\nThat implies that the Republicans are gentlemen which I highly doubt that is the case", ">\n\n\"...These rules are not a serious attempt at governing. They're essentially a ransom note to America from the extreme right.\"", ">\n\nWait, all you guys who were telling me there were \"moderates\" left in the party were lying?", ">\n\nIt amazes me that politicians in our country will decry reducing our military spending when our budget is more than Double the next highest spending country. It's like a third of our fucking budget!", ">\n\nLet the empty poo-flinging begin. If they're fighting each other for the sound bite on Faux, that's less damage to the nation and amusement for the sane. Nothing much will get done, but 2 more years lost where we might have tried to address the many problems facing the country.\nBut hey, this is apparently what a lot of people voted for.", ">\n\nDid they announce committee members and chairs? What power does the 'freedom' caucus wield now?" ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?", ">\n\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package?\n\nFor the same reason Santa Claus doesn't join the Easter Bunny for a cup of tea", ">\n\nChasing Amy", ">\n\nI didn't think of that when I typed it, but I SHOULD have!", ">\n\nBuckle up buckaroos!", ">\n\nWell, get ready for a US debt default, huh.", ">\n\nTheir doners don’t want that to happen. It’s just chicken", ">\n\nGym Jordan leading a committee is the stuff of nightmares.", ">\n\nI would love to see a Democrat bring a Motion to Vacate and see what happens.", ">\n\nI believe that rule only applies to republicans", ">\n\nThe article linked above says either party.", ">\n\nInvestigations and making noise is all they got. Not a single piece of legislation they pass has a hope in hell of passing. Until the money runs out and then it is going to be drive the economy into the toilet by defaulting on debt payments.", ">\n\nAnd every subpoena should earn this response: “We are following the guidance of Jim Jordan, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. When he deems it suitable to comply with congressional subpoenas, we will join him.” And since the Jan 6 committee has been disbanded and Gymmy can’t even fulfill his obligation, that’s the end of all compliance.", ">\n\nThey confirmed shut down the committee? Did it release it's findings?", ">\n\nWith a AI’s becoming more and more prevalent, if I was in charge of money from the democratic caucus, I would be creating an AI that could easily scan through these thousand page bills to look for a specific keywords, and become a learning program, that specifically will highlight problems with the bills in regards to undermining democracy.", ">\n\nThat would create longer bills unfortunately.", ">\n\nAI’s are extremely fast, you could create a bill that was 100,000 pages and if we had the right AI it could spit out results within minutes", ">\n\nAnd it would countered by making the bills longer to the point it would take hours to a day to go through the bills", ">\n\nThe Squeaker of the house has squeaked.", ">\n\nIt was enteratining and very disturbing. They'll do nothing but investigate Hunter Biden, try to ruin our economy by holding the debt ceiling hostage, the supreme court run by Catholic Conservatives will give a nod to everything illegal, unconstitutional or not. So McCarthy proved that republicans don't care about the country it's all about their little games and power moves. But pay attention because they're going to screw with all of us just like pulling the wings off of flies.", ">\n\nThe only upside to this I can see is the fact that all the deeply stupid shit the GOP wants to do will further alienate anyone left who thought they could still effectively govern. After this clown show falls down around their ears the only people left supporting the GOP will be the \"true believers\" (people too brainwashed or intellectually impaired to know better) so maybe just maybe we can finally relagate the party to the trash heap of history and begin undoing all the fucking damage they have managed to inflict over the years.\nIn my more optistic moments I even find myself hoping this will be the straw that breaks the camels back and forces America to completely overhaul the way we govern ourselves and put a stop to this capitalistic, fascistic death spiral we seem locked into.", ">\n\nThis is further proof that the current Republicans in congress are astonishingly out of touch with reality and have no interest in actual governance. They continue to interpret accountability as persecution.", ">\n\nRule #1: Chase those Jewish Space Lasers....right Majorie?\nRule #2: Legalize teenage sex trafficking...right Matt?\nRule #3: Indict Hunter Biden's laptop...right Kevin?\nRule #4: Coronation of Donald Trump....right Donald?", ">\n\nCan someone. Anyone. Give me a good, honest, solid answer here. How long is it going to take?\nIs the country doomed? Has Fascism won? Does anything matter anymore? When are we allowed to collectively panic?", ">\n\nWell for anything to get far it has to pass the Democratic Senate and Biden needs to sign it. So a lot of this will just be theater in place of doing something productive. The question will be is will Republicans be over the circus in 2 years or not?", ">\n\nThey can still hold the debt ceiling hostage and later shut down the government without the senate or president.", ">\n\nThere will be a game of chicken over the debt ceiling, but the majority of corporations and the investor class want to avoid a complete economic meltdown. I guess we’ll see if they really do burn it all down.", ">\n\nHow the hell did he pull that off?", ">\n\nSold his soul to the lowest bidder.", ">\n\nLittle man with his penis extender", ">\n\nWe don't have any idea what promises were made or what gentleman's handshakes were made”\nThat implies that the Republicans are gentlemen which I highly doubt that is the case", ">\n\n\"...These rules are not a serious attempt at governing. They're essentially a ransom note to America from the extreme right.\"", ">\n\nWait, all you guys who were telling me there were \"moderates\" left in the party were lying?", ">\n\nIt amazes me that politicians in our country will decry reducing our military spending when our budget is more than Double the next highest spending country. It's like a third of our fucking budget!", ">\n\nLet the empty poo-flinging begin. If they're fighting each other for the sound bite on Faux, that's less damage to the nation and amusement for the sane. Nothing much will get done, but 2 more years lost where we might have tried to address the many problems facing the country.\nBut hey, this is apparently what a lot of people voted for.", ">\n\nDid they announce committee members and chairs? What power does the 'freedom' caucus wield now?", ">\n\nCan a Democrat challenge his speakership and call for a vote every single day for the next two years now?" ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?", ">\n\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package?\n\nFor the same reason Santa Claus doesn't join the Easter Bunny for a cup of tea", ">\n\nChasing Amy", ">\n\nI didn't think of that when I typed it, but I SHOULD have!", ">\n\nBuckle up buckaroos!", ">\n\nWell, get ready for a US debt default, huh.", ">\n\nTheir doners don’t want that to happen. It’s just chicken", ">\n\nGym Jordan leading a committee is the stuff of nightmares.", ">\n\nI would love to see a Democrat bring a Motion to Vacate and see what happens.", ">\n\nI believe that rule only applies to republicans", ">\n\nThe article linked above says either party.", ">\n\nInvestigations and making noise is all they got. Not a single piece of legislation they pass has a hope in hell of passing. Until the money runs out and then it is going to be drive the economy into the toilet by defaulting on debt payments.", ">\n\nAnd every subpoena should earn this response: “We are following the guidance of Jim Jordan, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. When he deems it suitable to comply with congressional subpoenas, we will join him.” And since the Jan 6 committee has been disbanded and Gymmy can’t even fulfill his obligation, that’s the end of all compliance.", ">\n\nThey confirmed shut down the committee? Did it release it's findings?", ">\n\nWith a AI’s becoming more and more prevalent, if I was in charge of money from the democratic caucus, I would be creating an AI that could easily scan through these thousand page bills to look for a specific keywords, and become a learning program, that specifically will highlight problems with the bills in regards to undermining democracy.", ">\n\nThat would create longer bills unfortunately.", ">\n\nAI’s are extremely fast, you could create a bill that was 100,000 pages and if we had the right AI it could spit out results within minutes", ">\n\nAnd it would countered by making the bills longer to the point it would take hours to a day to go through the bills", ">\n\nThe Squeaker of the house has squeaked.", ">\n\nIt was enteratining and very disturbing. They'll do nothing but investigate Hunter Biden, try to ruin our economy by holding the debt ceiling hostage, the supreme court run by Catholic Conservatives will give a nod to everything illegal, unconstitutional or not. So McCarthy proved that republicans don't care about the country it's all about their little games and power moves. But pay attention because they're going to screw with all of us just like pulling the wings off of flies.", ">\n\nThe only upside to this I can see is the fact that all the deeply stupid shit the GOP wants to do will further alienate anyone left who thought they could still effectively govern. After this clown show falls down around their ears the only people left supporting the GOP will be the \"true believers\" (people too brainwashed or intellectually impaired to know better) so maybe just maybe we can finally relagate the party to the trash heap of history and begin undoing all the fucking damage they have managed to inflict over the years.\nIn my more optistic moments I even find myself hoping this will be the straw that breaks the camels back and forces America to completely overhaul the way we govern ourselves and put a stop to this capitalistic, fascistic death spiral we seem locked into.", ">\n\nThis is further proof that the current Republicans in congress are astonishingly out of touch with reality and have no interest in actual governance. They continue to interpret accountability as persecution.", ">\n\nRule #1: Chase those Jewish Space Lasers....right Majorie?\nRule #2: Legalize teenage sex trafficking...right Matt?\nRule #3: Indict Hunter Biden's laptop...right Kevin?\nRule #4: Coronation of Donald Trump....right Donald?", ">\n\nCan someone. Anyone. Give me a good, honest, solid answer here. How long is it going to take?\nIs the country doomed? Has Fascism won? Does anything matter anymore? When are we allowed to collectively panic?", ">\n\nWell for anything to get far it has to pass the Democratic Senate and Biden needs to sign it. So a lot of this will just be theater in place of doing something productive. The question will be is will Republicans be over the circus in 2 years or not?", ">\n\nThey can still hold the debt ceiling hostage and later shut down the government without the senate or president.", ">\n\nThere will be a game of chicken over the debt ceiling, but the majority of corporations and the investor class want to avoid a complete economic meltdown. I guess we’ll see if they really do burn it all down.", ">\n\nHow the hell did he pull that off?", ">\n\nSold his soul to the lowest bidder.", ">\n\nLittle man with his penis extender", ">\n\nWe don't have any idea what promises were made or what gentleman's handshakes were made”\nThat implies that the Republicans are gentlemen which I highly doubt that is the case", ">\n\n\"...These rules are not a serious attempt at governing. They're essentially a ransom note to America from the extreme right.\"", ">\n\nWait, all you guys who were telling me there were \"moderates\" left in the party were lying?", ">\n\nIt amazes me that politicians in our country will decry reducing our military spending when our budget is more than Double the next highest spending country. It's like a third of our fucking budget!", ">\n\nLet the empty poo-flinging begin. If they're fighting each other for the sound bite on Faux, that's less damage to the nation and amusement for the sane. Nothing much will get done, but 2 more years lost where we might have tried to address the many problems facing the country.\nBut hey, this is apparently what a lot of people voted for.", ">\n\nDid they announce committee members and chairs? What power does the 'freedom' caucus wield now?", ">\n\nCan a Democrat challenge his speakership and call for a vote every single day for the next two years now?", ">\n\nAOC was live within the last couple days and said there's apparently a provision preventing that from happening. I don't know for sure though." ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?", ">\n\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package?\n\nFor the same reason Santa Claus doesn't join the Easter Bunny for a cup of tea", ">\n\nChasing Amy", ">\n\nI didn't think of that when I typed it, but I SHOULD have!", ">\n\nBuckle up buckaroos!", ">\n\nWell, get ready for a US debt default, huh.", ">\n\nTheir doners don’t want that to happen. It’s just chicken", ">\n\nGym Jordan leading a committee is the stuff of nightmares.", ">\n\nI would love to see a Democrat bring a Motion to Vacate and see what happens.", ">\n\nI believe that rule only applies to republicans", ">\n\nThe article linked above says either party.", ">\n\nInvestigations and making noise is all they got. Not a single piece of legislation they pass has a hope in hell of passing. Until the money runs out and then it is going to be drive the economy into the toilet by defaulting on debt payments.", ">\n\nAnd every subpoena should earn this response: “We are following the guidance of Jim Jordan, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. When he deems it suitable to comply with congressional subpoenas, we will join him.” And since the Jan 6 committee has been disbanded and Gymmy can’t even fulfill his obligation, that’s the end of all compliance.", ">\n\nThey confirmed shut down the committee? Did it release it's findings?", ">\n\nWith a AI’s becoming more and more prevalent, if I was in charge of money from the democratic caucus, I would be creating an AI that could easily scan through these thousand page bills to look for a specific keywords, and become a learning program, that specifically will highlight problems with the bills in regards to undermining democracy.", ">\n\nThat would create longer bills unfortunately.", ">\n\nAI’s are extremely fast, you could create a bill that was 100,000 pages and if we had the right AI it could spit out results within minutes", ">\n\nAnd it would countered by making the bills longer to the point it would take hours to a day to go through the bills", ">\n\nThe Squeaker of the house has squeaked.", ">\n\nIt was enteratining and very disturbing. They'll do nothing but investigate Hunter Biden, try to ruin our economy by holding the debt ceiling hostage, the supreme court run by Catholic Conservatives will give a nod to everything illegal, unconstitutional or not. So McCarthy proved that republicans don't care about the country it's all about their little games and power moves. But pay attention because they're going to screw with all of us just like pulling the wings off of flies.", ">\n\nThe only upside to this I can see is the fact that all the deeply stupid shit the GOP wants to do will further alienate anyone left who thought they could still effectively govern. After this clown show falls down around their ears the only people left supporting the GOP will be the \"true believers\" (people too brainwashed or intellectually impaired to know better) so maybe just maybe we can finally relagate the party to the trash heap of history and begin undoing all the fucking damage they have managed to inflict over the years.\nIn my more optistic moments I even find myself hoping this will be the straw that breaks the camels back and forces America to completely overhaul the way we govern ourselves and put a stop to this capitalistic, fascistic death spiral we seem locked into.", ">\n\nThis is further proof that the current Republicans in congress are astonishingly out of touch with reality and have no interest in actual governance. They continue to interpret accountability as persecution.", ">\n\nRule #1: Chase those Jewish Space Lasers....right Majorie?\nRule #2: Legalize teenage sex trafficking...right Matt?\nRule #3: Indict Hunter Biden's laptop...right Kevin?\nRule #4: Coronation of Donald Trump....right Donald?", ">\n\nCan someone. Anyone. Give me a good, honest, solid answer here. How long is it going to take?\nIs the country doomed? Has Fascism won? Does anything matter anymore? When are we allowed to collectively panic?", ">\n\nWell for anything to get far it has to pass the Democratic Senate and Biden needs to sign it. So a lot of this will just be theater in place of doing something productive. The question will be is will Republicans be over the circus in 2 years or not?", ">\n\nThey can still hold the debt ceiling hostage and later shut down the government without the senate or president.", ">\n\nThere will be a game of chicken over the debt ceiling, but the majority of corporations and the investor class want to avoid a complete economic meltdown. I guess we’ll see if they really do burn it all down.", ">\n\nHow the hell did he pull that off?", ">\n\nSold his soul to the lowest bidder.", ">\n\nLittle man with his penis extender", ">\n\nWe don't have any idea what promises were made or what gentleman's handshakes were made”\nThat implies that the Republicans are gentlemen which I highly doubt that is the case", ">\n\n\"...These rules are not a serious attempt at governing. They're essentially a ransom note to America from the extreme right.\"", ">\n\nWait, all you guys who were telling me there were \"moderates\" left in the party were lying?", ">\n\nIt amazes me that politicians in our country will decry reducing our military spending when our budget is more than Double the next highest spending country. It's like a third of our fucking budget!", ">\n\nLet the empty poo-flinging begin. If they're fighting each other for the sound bite on Faux, that's less damage to the nation and amusement for the sane. Nothing much will get done, but 2 more years lost where we might have tried to address the many problems facing the country.\nBut hey, this is apparently what a lot of people voted for.", ">\n\nDid they announce committee members and chairs? What power does the 'freedom' caucus wield now?", ">\n\nCan a Democrat challenge his speakership and call for a vote every single day for the next two years now?", ">\n\nAOC was live within the last couple days and said there's apparently a provision preventing that from happening. I don't know for sure though.", ">\n\nTerm limits for Congress people sounds promising." ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?", ">\n\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package?\n\nFor the same reason Santa Claus doesn't join the Easter Bunny for a cup of tea", ">\n\nChasing Amy", ">\n\nI didn't think of that when I typed it, but I SHOULD have!", ">\n\nBuckle up buckaroos!", ">\n\nWell, get ready for a US debt default, huh.", ">\n\nTheir doners don’t want that to happen. It’s just chicken", ">\n\nGym Jordan leading a committee is the stuff of nightmares.", ">\n\nI would love to see a Democrat bring a Motion to Vacate and see what happens.", ">\n\nI believe that rule only applies to republicans", ">\n\nThe article linked above says either party.", ">\n\nInvestigations and making noise is all they got. Not a single piece of legislation they pass has a hope in hell of passing. Until the money runs out and then it is going to be drive the economy into the toilet by defaulting on debt payments.", ">\n\nAnd every subpoena should earn this response: “We are following the guidance of Jim Jordan, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. When he deems it suitable to comply with congressional subpoenas, we will join him.” And since the Jan 6 committee has been disbanded and Gymmy can’t even fulfill his obligation, that’s the end of all compliance.", ">\n\nThey confirmed shut down the committee? Did it release it's findings?", ">\n\nWith a AI’s becoming more and more prevalent, if I was in charge of money from the democratic caucus, I would be creating an AI that could easily scan through these thousand page bills to look for a specific keywords, and become a learning program, that specifically will highlight problems with the bills in regards to undermining democracy.", ">\n\nThat would create longer bills unfortunately.", ">\n\nAI’s are extremely fast, you could create a bill that was 100,000 pages and if we had the right AI it could spit out results within minutes", ">\n\nAnd it would countered by making the bills longer to the point it would take hours to a day to go through the bills", ">\n\nThe Squeaker of the house has squeaked.", ">\n\nIt was enteratining and very disturbing. They'll do nothing but investigate Hunter Biden, try to ruin our economy by holding the debt ceiling hostage, the supreme court run by Catholic Conservatives will give a nod to everything illegal, unconstitutional or not. So McCarthy proved that republicans don't care about the country it's all about their little games and power moves. But pay attention because they're going to screw with all of us just like pulling the wings off of flies.", ">\n\nThe only upside to this I can see is the fact that all the deeply stupid shit the GOP wants to do will further alienate anyone left who thought they could still effectively govern. After this clown show falls down around their ears the only people left supporting the GOP will be the \"true believers\" (people too brainwashed or intellectually impaired to know better) so maybe just maybe we can finally relagate the party to the trash heap of history and begin undoing all the fucking damage they have managed to inflict over the years.\nIn my more optistic moments I even find myself hoping this will be the straw that breaks the camels back and forces America to completely overhaul the way we govern ourselves and put a stop to this capitalistic, fascistic death spiral we seem locked into.", ">\n\nThis is further proof that the current Republicans in congress are astonishingly out of touch with reality and have no interest in actual governance. They continue to interpret accountability as persecution.", ">\n\nRule #1: Chase those Jewish Space Lasers....right Majorie?\nRule #2: Legalize teenage sex trafficking...right Matt?\nRule #3: Indict Hunter Biden's laptop...right Kevin?\nRule #4: Coronation of Donald Trump....right Donald?", ">\n\nCan someone. Anyone. Give me a good, honest, solid answer here. How long is it going to take?\nIs the country doomed? Has Fascism won? Does anything matter anymore? When are we allowed to collectively panic?", ">\n\nWell for anything to get far it has to pass the Democratic Senate and Biden needs to sign it. So a lot of this will just be theater in place of doing something productive. The question will be is will Republicans be over the circus in 2 years or not?", ">\n\nThey can still hold the debt ceiling hostage and later shut down the government without the senate or president.", ">\n\nThere will be a game of chicken over the debt ceiling, but the majority of corporations and the investor class want to avoid a complete economic meltdown. I guess we’ll see if they really do burn it all down.", ">\n\nHow the hell did he pull that off?", ">\n\nSold his soul to the lowest bidder.", ">\n\nLittle man with his penis extender", ">\n\nWe don't have any idea what promises were made or what gentleman's handshakes were made”\nThat implies that the Republicans are gentlemen which I highly doubt that is the case", ">\n\n\"...These rules are not a serious attempt at governing. They're essentially a ransom note to America from the extreme right.\"", ">\n\nWait, all you guys who were telling me there were \"moderates\" left in the party were lying?", ">\n\nIt amazes me that politicians in our country will decry reducing our military spending when our budget is more than Double the next highest spending country. It's like a third of our fucking budget!", ">\n\nLet the empty poo-flinging begin. If they're fighting each other for the sound bite on Faux, that's less damage to the nation and amusement for the sane. Nothing much will get done, but 2 more years lost where we might have tried to address the many problems facing the country.\nBut hey, this is apparently what a lot of people voted for.", ">\n\nDid they announce committee members and chairs? What power does the 'freedom' caucus wield now?", ">\n\nCan a Democrat challenge his speakership and call for a vote every single day for the next two years now?", ">\n\nAOC was live within the last couple days and said there's apparently a provision preventing that from happening. I don't know for sure though.", ">\n\nTerm limits for Congress people sounds promising.", ">\n\nDoes it include a secret addendum?" ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?", ">\n\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package?\n\nFor the same reason Santa Claus doesn't join the Easter Bunny for a cup of tea", ">\n\nChasing Amy", ">\n\nI didn't think of that when I typed it, but I SHOULD have!", ">\n\nBuckle up buckaroos!", ">\n\nWell, get ready for a US debt default, huh.", ">\n\nTheir doners don’t want that to happen. It’s just chicken", ">\n\nGym Jordan leading a committee is the stuff of nightmares.", ">\n\nI would love to see a Democrat bring a Motion to Vacate and see what happens.", ">\n\nI believe that rule only applies to republicans", ">\n\nThe article linked above says either party.", ">\n\nInvestigations and making noise is all they got. Not a single piece of legislation they pass has a hope in hell of passing. Until the money runs out and then it is going to be drive the economy into the toilet by defaulting on debt payments.", ">\n\nAnd every subpoena should earn this response: “We are following the guidance of Jim Jordan, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. When he deems it suitable to comply with congressional subpoenas, we will join him.” And since the Jan 6 committee has been disbanded and Gymmy can’t even fulfill his obligation, that’s the end of all compliance.", ">\n\nThey confirmed shut down the committee? Did it release it's findings?", ">\n\nWith a AI’s becoming more and more prevalent, if I was in charge of money from the democratic caucus, I would be creating an AI that could easily scan through these thousand page bills to look for a specific keywords, and become a learning program, that specifically will highlight problems with the bills in regards to undermining democracy.", ">\n\nThat would create longer bills unfortunately.", ">\n\nAI’s are extremely fast, you could create a bill that was 100,000 pages and if we had the right AI it could spit out results within minutes", ">\n\nAnd it would countered by making the bills longer to the point it would take hours to a day to go through the bills", ">\n\nThe Squeaker of the house has squeaked.", ">\n\nIt was enteratining and very disturbing. They'll do nothing but investigate Hunter Biden, try to ruin our economy by holding the debt ceiling hostage, the supreme court run by Catholic Conservatives will give a nod to everything illegal, unconstitutional or not. So McCarthy proved that republicans don't care about the country it's all about their little games and power moves. But pay attention because they're going to screw with all of us just like pulling the wings off of flies.", ">\n\nThe only upside to this I can see is the fact that all the deeply stupid shit the GOP wants to do will further alienate anyone left who thought they could still effectively govern. After this clown show falls down around their ears the only people left supporting the GOP will be the \"true believers\" (people too brainwashed or intellectually impaired to know better) so maybe just maybe we can finally relagate the party to the trash heap of history and begin undoing all the fucking damage they have managed to inflict over the years.\nIn my more optistic moments I even find myself hoping this will be the straw that breaks the camels back and forces America to completely overhaul the way we govern ourselves and put a stop to this capitalistic, fascistic death spiral we seem locked into.", ">\n\nThis is further proof that the current Republicans in congress are astonishingly out of touch with reality and have no interest in actual governance. They continue to interpret accountability as persecution.", ">\n\nRule #1: Chase those Jewish Space Lasers....right Majorie?\nRule #2: Legalize teenage sex trafficking...right Matt?\nRule #3: Indict Hunter Biden's laptop...right Kevin?\nRule #4: Coronation of Donald Trump....right Donald?", ">\n\nCan someone. Anyone. Give me a good, honest, solid answer here. How long is it going to take?\nIs the country doomed? Has Fascism won? Does anything matter anymore? When are we allowed to collectively panic?", ">\n\nWell for anything to get far it has to pass the Democratic Senate and Biden needs to sign it. So a lot of this will just be theater in place of doing something productive. The question will be is will Republicans be over the circus in 2 years or not?", ">\n\nThey can still hold the debt ceiling hostage and later shut down the government without the senate or president.", ">\n\nThere will be a game of chicken over the debt ceiling, but the majority of corporations and the investor class want to avoid a complete economic meltdown. I guess we’ll see if they really do burn it all down.", ">\n\nHow the hell did he pull that off?", ">\n\nSold his soul to the lowest bidder.", ">\n\nLittle man with his penis extender", ">\n\nWe don't have any idea what promises were made or what gentleman's handshakes were made”\nThat implies that the Republicans are gentlemen which I highly doubt that is the case", ">\n\n\"...These rules are not a serious attempt at governing. They're essentially a ransom note to America from the extreme right.\"", ">\n\nWait, all you guys who were telling me there were \"moderates\" left in the party were lying?", ">\n\nIt amazes me that politicians in our country will decry reducing our military spending when our budget is more than Double the next highest spending country. It's like a third of our fucking budget!", ">\n\nLet the empty poo-flinging begin. If they're fighting each other for the sound bite on Faux, that's less damage to the nation and amusement for the sane. Nothing much will get done, but 2 more years lost where we might have tried to address the many problems facing the country.\nBut hey, this is apparently what a lot of people voted for.", ">\n\nDid they announce committee members and chairs? What power does the 'freedom' caucus wield now?", ">\n\nCan a Democrat challenge his speakership and call for a vote every single day for the next two years now?", ">\n\nAOC was live within the last couple days and said there's apparently a provision preventing that from happening. I don't know for sure though.", ">\n\nTerm limits for Congress people sounds promising.", ">\n\nDoes it include a secret addendum?", ">\n\nThe best thing in there is probably the single subject bill rule." ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?", ">\n\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package?\n\nFor the same reason Santa Claus doesn't join the Easter Bunny for a cup of tea", ">\n\nChasing Amy", ">\n\nI didn't think of that when I typed it, but I SHOULD have!", ">\n\nBuckle up buckaroos!", ">\n\nWell, get ready for a US debt default, huh.", ">\n\nTheir doners don’t want that to happen. It’s just chicken", ">\n\nGym Jordan leading a committee is the stuff of nightmares.", ">\n\nI would love to see a Democrat bring a Motion to Vacate and see what happens.", ">\n\nI believe that rule only applies to republicans", ">\n\nThe article linked above says either party.", ">\n\nInvestigations and making noise is all they got. Not a single piece of legislation they pass has a hope in hell of passing. Until the money runs out and then it is going to be drive the economy into the toilet by defaulting on debt payments.", ">\n\nAnd every subpoena should earn this response: “We are following the guidance of Jim Jordan, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. When he deems it suitable to comply with congressional subpoenas, we will join him.” And since the Jan 6 committee has been disbanded and Gymmy can’t even fulfill his obligation, that’s the end of all compliance.", ">\n\nThey confirmed shut down the committee? Did it release it's findings?", ">\n\nWith a AI’s becoming more and more prevalent, if I was in charge of money from the democratic caucus, I would be creating an AI that could easily scan through these thousand page bills to look for a specific keywords, and become a learning program, that specifically will highlight problems with the bills in regards to undermining democracy.", ">\n\nThat would create longer bills unfortunately.", ">\n\nAI’s are extremely fast, you could create a bill that was 100,000 pages and if we had the right AI it could spit out results within minutes", ">\n\nAnd it would countered by making the bills longer to the point it would take hours to a day to go through the bills", ">\n\nThe Squeaker of the house has squeaked.", ">\n\nIt was enteratining and very disturbing. They'll do nothing but investigate Hunter Biden, try to ruin our economy by holding the debt ceiling hostage, the supreme court run by Catholic Conservatives will give a nod to everything illegal, unconstitutional or not. So McCarthy proved that republicans don't care about the country it's all about their little games and power moves. But pay attention because they're going to screw with all of us just like pulling the wings off of flies.", ">\n\nThe only upside to this I can see is the fact that all the deeply stupid shit the GOP wants to do will further alienate anyone left who thought they could still effectively govern. After this clown show falls down around their ears the only people left supporting the GOP will be the \"true believers\" (people too brainwashed or intellectually impaired to know better) so maybe just maybe we can finally relagate the party to the trash heap of history and begin undoing all the fucking damage they have managed to inflict over the years.\nIn my more optistic moments I even find myself hoping this will be the straw that breaks the camels back and forces America to completely overhaul the way we govern ourselves and put a stop to this capitalistic, fascistic death spiral we seem locked into.", ">\n\nThis is further proof that the current Republicans in congress are astonishingly out of touch with reality and have no interest in actual governance. They continue to interpret accountability as persecution.", ">\n\nRule #1: Chase those Jewish Space Lasers....right Majorie?\nRule #2: Legalize teenage sex trafficking...right Matt?\nRule #3: Indict Hunter Biden's laptop...right Kevin?\nRule #4: Coronation of Donald Trump....right Donald?", ">\n\nCan someone. Anyone. Give me a good, honest, solid answer here. How long is it going to take?\nIs the country doomed? Has Fascism won? Does anything matter anymore? When are we allowed to collectively panic?", ">\n\nWell for anything to get far it has to pass the Democratic Senate and Biden needs to sign it. So a lot of this will just be theater in place of doing something productive. The question will be is will Republicans be over the circus in 2 years or not?", ">\n\nThey can still hold the debt ceiling hostage and later shut down the government without the senate or president.", ">\n\nThere will be a game of chicken over the debt ceiling, but the majority of corporations and the investor class want to avoid a complete economic meltdown. I guess we’ll see if they really do burn it all down.", ">\n\nHow the hell did he pull that off?", ">\n\nSold his soul to the lowest bidder.", ">\n\nLittle man with his penis extender", ">\n\nWe don't have any idea what promises were made or what gentleman's handshakes were made”\nThat implies that the Republicans are gentlemen which I highly doubt that is the case", ">\n\n\"...These rules are not a serious attempt at governing. They're essentially a ransom note to America from the extreme right.\"", ">\n\nWait, all you guys who were telling me there were \"moderates\" left in the party were lying?", ">\n\nIt amazes me that politicians in our country will decry reducing our military spending when our budget is more than Double the next highest spending country. It's like a third of our fucking budget!", ">\n\nLet the empty poo-flinging begin. If they're fighting each other for the sound bite on Faux, that's less damage to the nation and amusement for the sane. Nothing much will get done, but 2 more years lost where we might have tried to address the many problems facing the country.\nBut hey, this is apparently what a lot of people voted for.", ">\n\nDid they announce committee members and chairs? What power does the 'freedom' caucus wield now?", ">\n\nCan a Democrat challenge his speakership and call for a vote every single day for the next two years now?", ">\n\nAOC was live within the last couple days and said there's apparently a provision preventing that from happening. I don't know for sure though.", ">\n\nTerm limits for Congress people sounds promising.", ">\n\nDoes it include a secret addendum?", ">\n\nThe best thing in there is probably the single subject bill rule.", ">\n\nThis will get vetoed so not really serious" ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?", ">\n\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package?\n\nFor the same reason Santa Claus doesn't join the Easter Bunny for a cup of tea", ">\n\nChasing Amy", ">\n\nI didn't think of that when I typed it, but I SHOULD have!", ">\n\nBuckle up buckaroos!", ">\n\nWell, get ready for a US debt default, huh.", ">\n\nTheir doners don’t want that to happen. It’s just chicken", ">\n\nGym Jordan leading a committee is the stuff of nightmares.", ">\n\nI would love to see a Democrat bring a Motion to Vacate and see what happens.", ">\n\nI believe that rule only applies to republicans", ">\n\nThe article linked above says either party.", ">\n\nInvestigations and making noise is all they got. Not a single piece of legislation they pass has a hope in hell of passing. Until the money runs out and then it is going to be drive the economy into the toilet by defaulting on debt payments.", ">\n\nAnd every subpoena should earn this response: “We are following the guidance of Jim Jordan, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. When he deems it suitable to comply with congressional subpoenas, we will join him.” And since the Jan 6 committee has been disbanded and Gymmy can’t even fulfill his obligation, that’s the end of all compliance.", ">\n\nThey confirmed shut down the committee? Did it release it's findings?", ">\n\nWith a AI’s becoming more and more prevalent, if I was in charge of money from the democratic caucus, I would be creating an AI that could easily scan through these thousand page bills to look for a specific keywords, and become a learning program, that specifically will highlight problems with the bills in regards to undermining democracy.", ">\n\nThat would create longer bills unfortunately.", ">\n\nAI’s are extremely fast, you could create a bill that was 100,000 pages and if we had the right AI it could spit out results within minutes", ">\n\nAnd it would countered by making the bills longer to the point it would take hours to a day to go through the bills", ">\n\nThe Squeaker of the house has squeaked.", ">\n\nIt was enteratining and very disturbing. They'll do nothing but investigate Hunter Biden, try to ruin our economy by holding the debt ceiling hostage, the supreme court run by Catholic Conservatives will give a nod to everything illegal, unconstitutional or not. So McCarthy proved that republicans don't care about the country it's all about their little games and power moves. But pay attention because they're going to screw with all of us just like pulling the wings off of flies.", ">\n\nThe only upside to this I can see is the fact that all the deeply stupid shit the GOP wants to do will further alienate anyone left who thought they could still effectively govern. After this clown show falls down around their ears the only people left supporting the GOP will be the \"true believers\" (people too brainwashed or intellectually impaired to know better) so maybe just maybe we can finally relagate the party to the trash heap of history and begin undoing all the fucking damage they have managed to inflict over the years.\nIn my more optistic moments I even find myself hoping this will be the straw that breaks the camels back and forces America to completely overhaul the way we govern ourselves and put a stop to this capitalistic, fascistic death spiral we seem locked into.", ">\n\nThis is further proof that the current Republicans in congress are astonishingly out of touch with reality and have no interest in actual governance. They continue to interpret accountability as persecution.", ">\n\nRule #1: Chase those Jewish Space Lasers....right Majorie?\nRule #2: Legalize teenage sex trafficking...right Matt?\nRule #3: Indict Hunter Biden's laptop...right Kevin?\nRule #4: Coronation of Donald Trump....right Donald?", ">\n\nCan someone. Anyone. Give me a good, honest, solid answer here. How long is it going to take?\nIs the country doomed? Has Fascism won? Does anything matter anymore? When are we allowed to collectively panic?", ">\n\nWell for anything to get far it has to pass the Democratic Senate and Biden needs to sign it. So a lot of this will just be theater in place of doing something productive. The question will be is will Republicans be over the circus in 2 years or not?", ">\n\nThey can still hold the debt ceiling hostage and later shut down the government without the senate or president.", ">\n\nThere will be a game of chicken over the debt ceiling, but the majority of corporations and the investor class want to avoid a complete economic meltdown. I guess we’ll see if they really do burn it all down.", ">\n\nHow the hell did he pull that off?", ">\n\nSold his soul to the lowest bidder.", ">\n\nLittle man with his penis extender", ">\n\nWe don't have any idea what promises were made or what gentleman's handshakes were made”\nThat implies that the Republicans are gentlemen which I highly doubt that is the case", ">\n\n\"...These rules are not a serious attempt at governing. They're essentially a ransom note to America from the extreme right.\"", ">\n\nWait, all you guys who were telling me there were \"moderates\" left in the party were lying?", ">\n\nIt amazes me that politicians in our country will decry reducing our military spending when our budget is more than Double the next highest spending country. It's like a third of our fucking budget!", ">\n\nLet the empty poo-flinging begin. If they're fighting each other for the sound bite on Faux, that's less damage to the nation and amusement for the sane. Nothing much will get done, but 2 more years lost where we might have tried to address the many problems facing the country.\nBut hey, this is apparently what a lot of people voted for.", ">\n\nDid they announce committee members and chairs? What power does the 'freedom' caucus wield now?", ">\n\nCan a Democrat challenge his speakership and call for a vote every single day for the next two years now?", ">\n\nAOC was live within the last couple days and said there's apparently a provision preventing that from happening. I don't know for sure though.", ">\n\nTerm limits for Congress people sounds promising.", ">\n\nDoes it include a secret addendum?", ">\n\nThe best thing in there is probably the single subject bill rule.", ">\n\nThis will get vetoed so not really serious", ">\n\nI give it 4 weeks before they start eating each other" ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?", ">\n\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package?\n\nFor the same reason Santa Claus doesn't join the Easter Bunny for a cup of tea", ">\n\nChasing Amy", ">\n\nI didn't think of that when I typed it, but I SHOULD have!", ">\n\nBuckle up buckaroos!", ">\n\nWell, get ready for a US debt default, huh.", ">\n\nTheir doners don’t want that to happen. It’s just chicken", ">\n\nGym Jordan leading a committee is the stuff of nightmares.", ">\n\nI would love to see a Democrat bring a Motion to Vacate and see what happens.", ">\n\nI believe that rule only applies to republicans", ">\n\nThe article linked above says either party.", ">\n\nInvestigations and making noise is all they got. Not a single piece of legislation they pass has a hope in hell of passing. Until the money runs out and then it is going to be drive the economy into the toilet by defaulting on debt payments.", ">\n\nAnd every subpoena should earn this response: “We are following the guidance of Jim Jordan, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. When he deems it suitable to comply with congressional subpoenas, we will join him.” And since the Jan 6 committee has been disbanded and Gymmy can’t even fulfill his obligation, that’s the end of all compliance.", ">\n\nThey confirmed shut down the committee? Did it release it's findings?", ">\n\nWith a AI’s becoming more and more prevalent, if I was in charge of money from the democratic caucus, I would be creating an AI that could easily scan through these thousand page bills to look for a specific keywords, and become a learning program, that specifically will highlight problems with the bills in regards to undermining democracy.", ">\n\nThat would create longer bills unfortunately.", ">\n\nAI’s are extremely fast, you could create a bill that was 100,000 pages and if we had the right AI it could spit out results within minutes", ">\n\nAnd it would countered by making the bills longer to the point it would take hours to a day to go through the bills", ">\n\nThe Squeaker of the house has squeaked.", ">\n\nIt was enteratining and very disturbing. They'll do nothing but investigate Hunter Biden, try to ruin our economy by holding the debt ceiling hostage, the supreme court run by Catholic Conservatives will give a nod to everything illegal, unconstitutional or not. So McCarthy proved that republicans don't care about the country it's all about their little games and power moves. But pay attention because they're going to screw with all of us just like pulling the wings off of flies.", ">\n\nThe only upside to this I can see is the fact that all the deeply stupid shit the GOP wants to do will further alienate anyone left who thought they could still effectively govern. After this clown show falls down around their ears the only people left supporting the GOP will be the \"true believers\" (people too brainwashed or intellectually impaired to know better) so maybe just maybe we can finally relagate the party to the trash heap of history and begin undoing all the fucking damage they have managed to inflict over the years.\nIn my more optistic moments I even find myself hoping this will be the straw that breaks the camels back and forces America to completely overhaul the way we govern ourselves and put a stop to this capitalistic, fascistic death spiral we seem locked into.", ">\n\nThis is further proof that the current Republicans in congress are astonishingly out of touch with reality and have no interest in actual governance. They continue to interpret accountability as persecution.", ">\n\nRule #1: Chase those Jewish Space Lasers....right Majorie?\nRule #2: Legalize teenage sex trafficking...right Matt?\nRule #3: Indict Hunter Biden's laptop...right Kevin?\nRule #4: Coronation of Donald Trump....right Donald?", ">\n\nCan someone. Anyone. Give me a good, honest, solid answer here. How long is it going to take?\nIs the country doomed? Has Fascism won? Does anything matter anymore? When are we allowed to collectively panic?", ">\n\nWell for anything to get far it has to pass the Democratic Senate and Biden needs to sign it. So a lot of this will just be theater in place of doing something productive. The question will be is will Republicans be over the circus in 2 years or not?", ">\n\nThey can still hold the debt ceiling hostage and later shut down the government without the senate or president.", ">\n\nThere will be a game of chicken over the debt ceiling, but the majority of corporations and the investor class want to avoid a complete economic meltdown. I guess we’ll see if they really do burn it all down.", ">\n\nHow the hell did he pull that off?", ">\n\nSold his soul to the lowest bidder.", ">\n\nLittle man with his penis extender", ">\n\nWe don't have any idea what promises were made or what gentleman's handshakes were made”\nThat implies that the Republicans are gentlemen which I highly doubt that is the case", ">\n\n\"...These rules are not a serious attempt at governing. They're essentially a ransom note to America from the extreme right.\"", ">\n\nWait, all you guys who were telling me there were \"moderates\" left in the party were lying?", ">\n\nIt amazes me that politicians in our country will decry reducing our military spending when our budget is more than Double the next highest spending country. It's like a third of our fucking budget!", ">\n\nLet the empty poo-flinging begin. If they're fighting each other for the sound bite on Faux, that's less damage to the nation and amusement for the sane. Nothing much will get done, but 2 more years lost where we might have tried to address the many problems facing the country.\nBut hey, this is apparently what a lot of people voted for.", ">\n\nDid they announce committee members and chairs? What power does the 'freedom' caucus wield now?", ">\n\nCan a Democrat challenge his speakership and call for a vote every single day for the next two years now?", ">\n\nAOC was live within the last couple days and said there's apparently a provision preventing that from happening. I don't know for sure though.", ">\n\nTerm limits for Congress people sounds promising.", ">\n\nDoes it include a secret addendum?", ">\n\nThe best thing in there is probably the single subject bill rule.", ">\n\nThis will get vetoed so not really serious", ">\n\nI give it 4 weeks before they start eating each other", ">\n\nIt is inevitable that non-extreme (read opportunistic) republicans will eventually join democrats to create a working House of Representatives. The “freedom” caucus has all but guaranteed that they will cause a crisis. It could a defaulted national debt, government shutdown or something unanticipated. Republicans that want to have careers in office after 2024 have already started to negotiate with democrats on the details. All it will take is the crisis where republicans can say they are putting the Country before the party." ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?", ">\n\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package?\n\nFor the same reason Santa Claus doesn't join the Easter Bunny for a cup of tea", ">\n\nChasing Amy", ">\n\nI didn't think of that when I typed it, but I SHOULD have!", ">\n\nBuckle up buckaroos!", ">\n\nWell, get ready for a US debt default, huh.", ">\n\nTheir doners don’t want that to happen. It’s just chicken", ">\n\nGym Jordan leading a committee is the stuff of nightmares.", ">\n\nI would love to see a Democrat bring a Motion to Vacate and see what happens.", ">\n\nI believe that rule only applies to republicans", ">\n\nThe article linked above says either party.", ">\n\nInvestigations and making noise is all they got. Not a single piece of legislation they pass has a hope in hell of passing. Until the money runs out and then it is going to be drive the economy into the toilet by defaulting on debt payments.", ">\n\nAnd every subpoena should earn this response: “We are following the guidance of Jim Jordan, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. When he deems it suitable to comply with congressional subpoenas, we will join him.” And since the Jan 6 committee has been disbanded and Gymmy can’t even fulfill his obligation, that’s the end of all compliance.", ">\n\nThey confirmed shut down the committee? Did it release it's findings?", ">\n\nWith a AI’s becoming more and more prevalent, if I was in charge of money from the democratic caucus, I would be creating an AI that could easily scan through these thousand page bills to look for a specific keywords, and become a learning program, that specifically will highlight problems with the bills in regards to undermining democracy.", ">\n\nThat would create longer bills unfortunately.", ">\n\nAI’s are extremely fast, you could create a bill that was 100,000 pages and if we had the right AI it could spit out results within minutes", ">\n\nAnd it would countered by making the bills longer to the point it would take hours to a day to go through the bills", ">\n\nThe Squeaker of the house has squeaked.", ">\n\nIt was enteratining and very disturbing. They'll do nothing but investigate Hunter Biden, try to ruin our economy by holding the debt ceiling hostage, the supreme court run by Catholic Conservatives will give a nod to everything illegal, unconstitutional or not. So McCarthy proved that republicans don't care about the country it's all about their little games and power moves. But pay attention because they're going to screw with all of us just like pulling the wings off of flies.", ">\n\nThe only upside to this I can see is the fact that all the deeply stupid shit the GOP wants to do will further alienate anyone left who thought they could still effectively govern. After this clown show falls down around their ears the only people left supporting the GOP will be the \"true believers\" (people too brainwashed or intellectually impaired to know better) so maybe just maybe we can finally relagate the party to the trash heap of history and begin undoing all the fucking damage they have managed to inflict over the years.\nIn my more optistic moments I even find myself hoping this will be the straw that breaks the camels back and forces America to completely overhaul the way we govern ourselves and put a stop to this capitalistic, fascistic death spiral we seem locked into.", ">\n\nThis is further proof that the current Republicans in congress are astonishingly out of touch with reality and have no interest in actual governance. They continue to interpret accountability as persecution.", ">\n\nRule #1: Chase those Jewish Space Lasers....right Majorie?\nRule #2: Legalize teenage sex trafficking...right Matt?\nRule #3: Indict Hunter Biden's laptop...right Kevin?\nRule #4: Coronation of Donald Trump....right Donald?", ">\n\nCan someone. Anyone. Give me a good, honest, solid answer here. How long is it going to take?\nIs the country doomed? Has Fascism won? Does anything matter anymore? When are we allowed to collectively panic?", ">\n\nWell for anything to get far it has to pass the Democratic Senate and Biden needs to sign it. So a lot of this will just be theater in place of doing something productive. The question will be is will Republicans be over the circus in 2 years or not?", ">\n\nThey can still hold the debt ceiling hostage and later shut down the government without the senate or president.", ">\n\nThere will be a game of chicken over the debt ceiling, but the majority of corporations and the investor class want to avoid a complete economic meltdown. I guess we’ll see if they really do burn it all down.", ">\n\nHow the hell did he pull that off?", ">\n\nSold his soul to the lowest bidder.", ">\n\nLittle man with his penis extender", ">\n\nWe don't have any idea what promises were made or what gentleman's handshakes were made”\nThat implies that the Republicans are gentlemen which I highly doubt that is the case", ">\n\n\"...These rules are not a serious attempt at governing. They're essentially a ransom note to America from the extreme right.\"", ">\n\nWait, all you guys who were telling me there were \"moderates\" left in the party were lying?", ">\n\nIt amazes me that politicians in our country will decry reducing our military spending when our budget is more than Double the next highest spending country. It's like a third of our fucking budget!", ">\n\nLet the empty poo-flinging begin. If they're fighting each other for the sound bite on Faux, that's less damage to the nation and amusement for the sane. Nothing much will get done, but 2 more years lost where we might have tried to address the many problems facing the country.\nBut hey, this is apparently what a lot of people voted for.", ">\n\nDid they announce committee members and chairs? What power does the 'freedom' caucus wield now?", ">\n\nCan a Democrat challenge his speakership and call for a vote every single day for the next two years now?", ">\n\nAOC was live within the last couple days and said there's apparently a provision preventing that from happening. I don't know for sure though.", ">\n\nTerm limits for Congress people sounds promising.", ">\n\nDoes it include a secret addendum?", ">\n\nThe best thing in there is probably the single subject bill rule.", ">\n\nThis will get vetoed so not really serious", ">\n\nI give it 4 weeks before they start eating each other", ">\n\nIt is inevitable that non-extreme (read opportunistic) republicans will eventually join democrats to create a working House of Representatives. The “freedom” caucus has all but guaranteed that they will cause a crisis. It could a defaulted national debt, government shutdown or something unanticipated. Republicans that want to have careers in office after 2024 have already started to negotiate with democrats on the details. All it will take is the crisis where republicans can say they are putting the Country before the party.", ">\n\nI have an idea, place a cap on a number of pages a notable bill can be voted on.. they’ll be lots of voting sessions and the by-product will settle an upcoming vote regarding term limits because no one will want to do this for a second term" ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?", ">\n\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package?\n\nFor the same reason Santa Claus doesn't join the Easter Bunny for a cup of tea", ">\n\nChasing Amy", ">\n\nI didn't think of that when I typed it, but I SHOULD have!", ">\n\nBuckle up buckaroos!", ">\n\nWell, get ready for a US debt default, huh.", ">\n\nTheir doners don’t want that to happen. It’s just chicken", ">\n\nGym Jordan leading a committee is the stuff of nightmares.", ">\n\nI would love to see a Democrat bring a Motion to Vacate and see what happens.", ">\n\nI believe that rule only applies to republicans", ">\n\nThe article linked above says either party.", ">\n\nInvestigations and making noise is all they got. Not a single piece of legislation they pass has a hope in hell of passing. Until the money runs out and then it is going to be drive the economy into the toilet by defaulting on debt payments.", ">\n\nAnd every subpoena should earn this response: “We are following the guidance of Jim Jordan, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. When he deems it suitable to comply with congressional subpoenas, we will join him.” And since the Jan 6 committee has been disbanded and Gymmy can’t even fulfill his obligation, that’s the end of all compliance.", ">\n\nThey confirmed shut down the committee? Did it release it's findings?", ">\n\nWith a AI’s becoming more and more prevalent, if I was in charge of money from the democratic caucus, I would be creating an AI that could easily scan through these thousand page bills to look for a specific keywords, and become a learning program, that specifically will highlight problems with the bills in regards to undermining democracy.", ">\n\nThat would create longer bills unfortunately.", ">\n\nAI’s are extremely fast, you could create a bill that was 100,000 pages and if we had the right AI it could spit out results within minutes", ">\n\nAnd it would countered by making the bills longer to the point it would take hours to a day to go through the bills", ">\n\nThe Squeaker of the house has squeaked.", ">\n\nIt was enteratining and very disturbing. They'll do nothing but investigate Hunter Biden, try to ruin our economy by holding the debt ceiling hostage, the supreme court run by Catholic Conservatives will give a nod to everything illegal, unconstitutional or not. So McCarthy proved that republicans don't care about the country it's all about their little games and power moves. But pay attention because they're going to screw with all of us just like pulling the wings off of flies.", ">\n\nThe only upside to this I can see is the fact that all the deeply stupid shit the GOP wants to do will further alienate anyone left who thought they could still effectively govern. After this clown show falls down around their ears the only people left supporting the GOP will be the \"true believers\" (people too brainwashed or intellectually impaired to know better) so maybe just maybe we can finally relagate the party to the trash heap of history and begin undoing all the fucking damage they have managed to inflict over the years.\nIn my more optistic moments I even find myself hoping this will be the straw that breaks the camels back and forces America to completely overhaul the way we govern ourselves and put a stop to this capitalistic, fascistic death spiral we seem locked into.", ">\n\nThis is further proof that the current Republicans in congress are astonishingly out of touch with reality and have no interest in actual governance. They continue to interpret accountability as persecution.", ">\n\nRule #1: Chase those Jewish Space Lasers....right Majorie?\nRule #2: Legalize teenage sex trafficking...right Matt?\nRule #3: Indict Hunter Biden's laptop...right Kevin?\nRule #4: Coronation of Donald Trump....right Donald?", ">\n\nCan someone. Anyone. Give me a good, honest, solid answer here. How long is it going to take?\nIs the country doomed? Has Fascism won? Does anything matter anymore? When are we allowed to collectively panic?", ">\n\nWell for anything to get far it has to pass the Democratic Senate and Biden needs to sign it. So a lot of this will just be theater in place of doing something productive. The question will be is will Republicans be over the circus in 2 years or not?", ">\n\nThey can still hold the debt ceiling hostage and later shut down the government without the senate or president.", ">\n\nThere will be a game of chicken over the debt ceiling, but the majority of corporations and the investor class want to avoid a complete economic meltdown. I guess we’ll see if they really do burn it all down.", ">\n\nHow the hell did he pull that off?", ">\n\nSold his soul to the lowest bidder.", ">\n\nLittle man with his penis extender", ">\n\nWe don't have any idea what promises were made or what gentleman's handshakes were made”\nThat implies that the Republicans are gentlemen which I highly doubt that is the case", ">\n\n\"...These rules are not a serious attempt at governing. They're essentially a ransom note to America from the extreme right.\"", ">\n\nWait, all you guys who were telling me there were \"moderates\" left in the party were lying?", ">\n\nIt amazes me that politicians in our country will decry reducing our military spending when our budget is more than Double the next highest spending country. It's like a third of our fucking budget!", ">\n\nLet the empty poo-flinging begin. If they're fighting each other for the sound bite on Faux, that's less damage to the nation and amusement for the sane. Nothing much will get done, but 2 more years lost where we might have tried to address the many problems facing the country.\nBut hey, this is apparently what a lot of people voted for.", ">\n\nDid they announce committee members and chairs? What power does the 'freedom' caucus wield now?", ">\n\nCan a Democrat challenge his speakership and call for a vote every single day for the next two years now?", ">\n\nAOC was live within the last couple days and said there's apparently a provision preventing that from happening. I don't know for sure though.", ">\n\nTerm limits for Congress people sounds promising.", ">\n\nDoes it include a secret addendum?", ">\n\nThe best thing in there is probably the single subject bill rule.", ">\n\nThis will get vetoed so not really serious", ">\n\nI give it 4 weeks before they start eating each other", ">\n\nIt is inevitable that non-extreme (read opportunistic) republicans will eventually join democrats to create a working House of Representatives. The “freedom” caucus has all but guaranteed that they will cause a crisis. It could a defaulted national debt, government shutdown or something unanticipated. Republicans that want to have careers in office after 2024 have already started to negotiate with democrats on the details. All it will take is the crisis where republicans can say they are putting the Country before the party.", ">\n\nI have an idea, place a cap on a number of pages a notable bill can be voted on.. they’ll be lots of voting sessions and the by-product will settle an upcoming vote regarding term limits because no one will want to do this for a second term", ">\n\n\nWhile not included in the 55-page package to be voted on by the House on Monday, McCarthy agreed during talks with conservative holdouts to cap spending at fiscal year 2022 levels, which could lead to cuts in defense spending.\n\nYeah no, that’s not how they operate. They’ll increase DOD spending and decrease everywhere else. Gotta pad the war machine and keep their future seats with Lockheed, Boeing, and Raytheon" ]

[ "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.", ">\n\nWhile simultaneously jamming 6 or so bills through, and 2 concurrent resolutions that will be treated as read.\nRead Section 5.", ">\n\n\nRead Section 5.\n\nCould 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.", ">\n\nSection 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.", ">\n\n\nthat will not be read\n\nThe wording \"shall be considered as read\" is standard. I think you are reading more into this than is actually there.\n​\n\nall points of contention on the bills are waived\n\nAll 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?\n​\n\nonly an hour of debate split between parties\n\nSometimes it is an hour, sometimes it is two hours. Very rarely it is some other amount of time. So this is also standard.\n​\nYou seem to be seeing this as jamming through legislation, when in actuality this is the special rules that are normally used.", ">\n\nThat may be the case, but nothing else like that is there in the rules packages going back to the 115th Congress.\nI haven't had enough time to go further back, but I would like to see when the last time something like this was included in a House rules package.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nThe 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.", ">\n\nHow? 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.", ">\n\nUnfortunately, 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.", ">\n\nThat'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).\nedit: 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.", ">\n\nWhich, 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.", ">\n\nThank you, I did not know that!", ">\n\nYea, during the speaker votes CSPAN kept mentioning their unique ability at the time to have their own cameras inside.", ">\n\nI didn’t catch the CSPAN bus until the last 2 days. We don’t have it and spaced out the feed was on YouTube", ">\n\nI was watching on youtube", ">\n\nOk, question. Can McCarthy have only Republicans on all the committees?", ">\n\nI believe Jeffries can recommend people for the committee to make it bi-partisan, but McCarthy can say no to anyone.", ">\n\nGet ready for all Republican committees. 😠", ">\n\nThats literally not allowed", ">\n\nAll saber rattling aside they all fall in line no matter how concerned they are.", ">\n\nI 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.", ">\n\nIt will be a circus for 2 years. Actually no, circus is at least entertaining. This will be painful.", ">\n\nHonestly, given the Senate, it'll likely just be boring. Nothing they pass will make it through the Senate.", ">\n\nIt 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.", ">\n\n...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.", ">\n\nEvery 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?", ">\n\nIt 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", ">\n\nI 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?", ">\n\nWhy 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.", ">\n\nWhat I’m truly shocked at is they are hovering like they swept congress and took both houses when they barely - barely - took the house.", ">\n\nExactly! They really shouldn’t be strutting around like they won the Super Bowl!!!", ">\n\nWill you be updating this comment as more chairs are made public?", ">\n\nSure, i can do that!", ">\n\nThanks!", ">\n\nI want to see motions to vacate every day.", ">\n\nI make motions to vacate every day, but no one ever wants to see it. 😞", ">\n\nThis is going to be a long two years.", ">\n\nI guess the moderate republicans weren't all that concerned with it...", ">\n\nGo along to get along.", ">\n\nWhich just proves there's zero difference between them and McCarthy just has a humiliation fetish.", ">\n\nSo everyday the house goes into session the Democrats should force a vote with a motion to Vacate.", ">\n\nI think that will backfire. Republicans looked bad when they spent a week arguing over who the Speaker would be from their own party. If Democrats motion to vacate the Speaker, I think a few things would happen:\n1) The narrative would be that Dems are obstructing business in the House, forcing a vote over and over when their candidate would never win the majority\n2) Republicans would fall in line behind McCarthy again simply because the motion came from the Dems. They already slugged it out over Speaker, so they've made peace with the decision to have McCarthy for now. There may be infighting and his own caucus may eat him alive, but if Dems initiate it, it will always die on the floor. In their circles, they can spin their decision to oust one of their own, but their base will not tolerate them being foiled by Democrats.", ">\n\nUnless there are a number of Repubs missing that day. Isn't the number as low as 8 or 11 absent/just hitting \"present\" enough to make the majority work at 212 Democratic Party votes?", ">\n\nI mean, maybe... but it would be a short-lived victory. The next time all the Republicans were in the chamber, they could vote to vacate and take over the Speakership again. Even if they lucked into a day where more Dems were present than Republicans, I don't see a political advantage in seizing the reins. Are they gonna swoop in for some mega-session where they vacate the current speaker, vote in a new one, and quickly pass a new rules package slamming the door on Republicans? I'm no parliamentarian, but I don't think that's possible. And you'd need every Dem to sign on. They were unified behind Jeffries, but it doesn't mean they'd all be willing to stick their neck out to vacate the chair. Some of these folks were elected by thin margins... some may find it safer to be the adults in the room while the Republicans spin their wheels on unpopular policies and pointless investigations.", ">\n\nEnough GOP Reps are out of town. Motion to Vacate. Elect Jeffries. Quickly pass a new rules package. Pass any legislation they want before the GOP can get it's act together and reorganize.", ">\n\nMore importantly, Jefferies will control what bills go to the floor", ">\n\nOh look, Republicans acting like useless corrupt trash again. Sadly that isn't really newsworthy, it's just the definition of being a Republican these days.", ">\n\nActing?", ">\n\nGood point! ;)", ">\n\n\n\"In fact, there was broad agreement spending cuts should focus on NON-DEFENSE discretionary spending. This means cutting funding for the woke & weaponized bureaucrats that received massive increases under the $1.7 trillion omnibus. (This IS NOT Social Security/Medicare),\" his office said in a series of tweets.\n\nUmmmmm …. Debt interest, Defense, social security, and Medicare make up more than half government spending. What else you going to cut Roy? Education?", ">\n\nEducation, science/CDC, EPA, IRS, SEC, FEC, consumer protection agency, etc.\nKey words being \"woke & weaponized bureaucrats\". They want to keep gutting the government so their donors can keep raping and pillaging.", ">\n\nRepublicans about to show their ass to all of America for the next 2 years.", ">\n\nMeanwhile, boehner leans back in his lazyboy and lights a bowl thinking, “It could be worse - it could be me again.”", ">\n\nBring back Congress sexting drama", ">\n\nso no cameras for the public and no metal detectors? seems like they want shit to go down and then create a narrative", ">\n\nThere are still fixed cameras owned by the Federal Government that CSpan can access, but no more sexy in the trenches covering", ">\n\nTime for unfettered fascism from the (definitely not a cult) Republicans.", ">\n\nYou say that like the red wave came. The News cycle is gonna suck, but we have systems in place to limit the damage.", ">\n\nYeah, Like the SCOTUS....\n​\n....ohh wait, NVM, they are far right activists....", ">\n\nAnd their original plan will fail since republicans barely control one branch.\nAgain, the next 2 years are gonna suck, but it’s not the end of the world", ">\n\nHey, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I think you might be interested in.", ">\n\nOk doomer", ">\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package? Like concede to the crazies to elect a speaker and then pull the rug and just not pass the crazy rules?", ">\n\n\nWhy couldn’t the semi-reasonable republicans join the democrats in voting down the crazy rules package?\n\nFor the same reason Santa Claus doesn't join the Easter Bunny for a cup of tea", ">\n\nChasing Amy", ">\n\nI didn't think of that when I typed it, but I SHOULD have!", ">\n\nBuckle up buckaroos!", ">\n\nWell, get ready for a US debt default, huh.", ">\n\nTheir doners don’t want that to happen. It’s just chicken", ">\n\nGym Jordan leading a committee is the stuff of nightmares.", ">\n\nI would love to see a Democrat bring a Motion to Vacate and see what happens.", ">\n\nI believe that rule only applies to republicans", ">\n\nThe article linked above says either party.", ">\n\nInvestigations and making noise is all they got. Not a single piece of legislation they pass has a hope in hell of passing. Until the money runs out and then it is going to be drive the economy into the toilet by defaulting on debt payments.", ">\n\nAnd every subpoena should earn this response: “We are following the guidance of Jim Jordan, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. When he deems it suitable to comply with congressional subpoenas, we will join him.” And since the Jan 6 committee has been disbanded and Gymmy can’t even fulfill his obligation, that’s the end of all compliance.", ">\n\nThey confirmed shut down the committee? Did it release it's findings?", ">\n\nWith a AI’s becoming more and more prevalent, if I was in charge of money from the democratic caucus, I would be creating an AI that could easily scan through these thousand page bills to look for a specific keywords, and become a learning program, that specifically will highlight problems with the bills in regards to undermining democracy.", ">\n\nThat would create longer bills unfortunately.", ">\n\nAI’s are extremely fast, you could create a bill that was 100,000 pages and if we had the right AI it could spit out results within minutes", ">\n\nAnd it would countered by making the bills longer to the point it would take hours to a day to go through the bills", ">\n\nThe Squeaker of the house has squeaked.", ">\n\nIt was enteratining and very disturbing. They'll do nothing but investigate Hunter Biden, try to ruin our economy by holding the debt ceiling hostage, the supreme court run by Catholic Conservatives will give a nod to everything illegal, unconstitutional or not. So McCarthy proved that republicans don't care about the country it's all about their little games and power moves. But pay attention because they're going to screw with all of us just like pulling the wings off of flies.", ">\n\nThe only upside to this I can see is the fact that all the deeply stupid shit the GOP wants to do will further alienate anyone left who thought they could still effectively govern. After this clown show falls down around their ears the only people left supporting the GOP will be the \"true believers\" (people too brainwashed or intellectually impaired to know better) so maybe just maybe we can finally relagate the party to the trash heap of history and begin undoing all the fucking damage they have managed to inflict over the years.\nIn my more optistic moments I even find myself hoping this will be the straw that breaks the camels back and forces America to completely overhaul the way we govern ourselves and put a stop to this capitalistic, fascistic death spiral we seem locked into.", ">\n\nThis is further proof that the current Republicans in congress are astonishingly out of touch with reality and have no interest in actual governance. They continue to interpret accountability as persecution.", ">\n\nRule #1: Chase those Jewish Space Lasers....right Majorie?\nRule #2: Legalize teenage sex trafficking...right Matt?\nRule #3: Indict Hunter Biden's laptop...right Kevin?\nRule #4: Coronation of Donald Trump....right Donald?", ">\n\nCan someone. Anyone. Give me a good, honest, solid answer here. How long is it going to take?\nIs the country doomed? Has Fascism won? Does anything matter anymore? When are we allowed to collectively panic?", ">\n\nWell for anything to get far it has to pass the Democratic Senate and Biden needs to sign it. So a lot of this will just be theater in place of doing something productive. The question will be is will Republicans be over the circus in 2 years or not?", ">\n\nThey can still hold the debt ceiling hostage and later shut down the government without the senate or president.", ">\n\nThere will be a game of chicken over the debt ceiling, but the majority of corporations and the investor class want to avoid a complete economic meltdown. I guess we’ll see if they really do burn it all down.", ">\n\nHow the hell did he pull that off?", ">\n\nSold his soul to the lowest bidder.", ">\n\nLittle man with his penis extender", ">\n\nWe don't have any idea what promises were made or what gentleman's handshakes were made”\nThat implies that the Republicans are gentlemen which I highly doubt that is the case", ">\n\n\"...These rules are not a serious attempt at governing. They're essentially a ransom note to America from the extreme right.\"", ">\n\nWait, all you guys who were telling me there were \"moderates\" left in the party were lying?", ">\n\nIt amazes me that politicians in our country will decry reducing our military spending when our budget is more than Double the next highest spending country. It's like a third of our fucking budget!", ">\n\nLet the empty poo-flinging begin. If they're fighting each other for the sound bite on Faux, that's less damage to the nation and amusement for the sane. Nothing much will get done, but 2 more years lost where we might have tried to address the many problems facing the country.\nBut hey, this is apparently what a lot of people voted for.", ">\n\nDid they announce committee members and chairs? What power does the 'freedom' caucus wield now?", ">\n\nCan a Democrat challenge his speakership and call for a vote every single day for the next two years now?", ">\n\nAOC was live within the last couple days and said there's apparently a provision preventing that from happening. I don't know for sure though.", ">\n\nTerm limits for Congress people sounds promising.", ">\n\nDoes it include a secret addendum?", ">\n\nThe best thing in there is probably the single subject bill rule.", ">\n\nThis will get vetoed so not really serious", ">\n\nI give it 4 weeks before they start eating each other", ">\n\nIt is inevitable that non-extreme (read opportunistic) republicans will eventually join democrats to create a working House of Representatives. The “freedom” caucus has all but guaranteed that they will cause a crisis. It could a defaulted national debt, government shutdown or something unanticipated. Republicans that want to have careers in office after 2024 have already started to negotiate with democrats on the details. All it will take is the crisis where republicans can say they are putting the Country before the party.", ">\n\nI have an idea, place a cap on a number of pages a notable bill can be voted on.. they’ll be lots of voting sessions and the by-product will settle an upcoming vote regarding term limits because no one will want to do this for a second term", ">\n\n\nWhile not included in the 55-page package to be voted on by the House on Monday, McCarthy agreed during talks with conservative holdouts to cap spending at fiscal year 2022 levels, which could lead to cuts in defense spending.\n\nYeah no, that’s not how they operate. They’ll increase DOD spending and decrease everywhere else. Gotta pad the war machine and keep their future seats with Lockheed, Boeing, and Raytheon", ">\n\nThat was easy for him, he knows Biden would never sign it." ]

[]

[ "Saved you a click. I thought it might be interesting. It’s not. The donors seem to be from Denmark." ]

[ "Saved you a click. I thought it might be interesting. It’s not. The donors seem to be from Denmark.", ">\n\nOverseas specifically... Due to not being allowed to be an anonymous sperm donor in the UK" ]

[ "Saved you a click. I thought it might be interesting. It’s not. The donors seem to be from Denmark.", ">\n\nOverseas specifically... Due to not being allowed to be an anonymous sperm donor in the UK", ">\n\nOn the flip side of this I saw what I think was a \"60 Minutes\" special a long time ago about sperm banks in the US. At the time it was claimed that a large contingent of women (many single, lonely) who wanted to impregnate themselves were only going for blond haired blue eyes males from supposedly upper class donors. I'm not sure if it's still like that but IIRC some people were pissed off and saw this phenomenon as a sort of undercurrent of eugenics." ]

[ "Saved you a click. I thought it might be interesting. It’s not. The donors seem to be from Denmark.", ">\n\nOverseas specifically... Due to not being allowed to be an anonymous sperm donor in the UK", ">\n\nOn the flip side of this I saw what I think was a \"60 Minutes\" special a long time ago about sperm banks in the US. At the time it was claimed that a large contingent of women (many single, lonely) who wanted to impregnate themselves were only going for blond haired blue eyes males from supposedly upper class donors. I'm not sure if it's still like that but IIRC some people were pissed off and saw this phenomenon as a sort of undercurrent of eugenics.", ">\n\nVery similar mouthfeel." ]

[ "Saved you a click. I thought it might be interesting. It’s not. The donors seem to be from Denmark.", ">\n\nOverseas specifically... Due to not being allowed to be an anonymous sperm donor in the UK", ">\n\nOn the flip side of this I saw what I think was a \"60 Minutes\" special a long time ago about sperm banks in the US. At the time it was claimed that a large contingent of women (many single, lonely) who wanted to impregnate themselves were only going for blond haired blue eyes males from supposedly upper class donors. I'm not sure if it's still like that but IIRC some people were pissed off and saw this phenomenon as a sort of undercurrent of eugenics.", ">\n\nVery similar mouthfeel.", ">\n\nViscosity is getting, and I hate that they used this word, \"chunkier\"." ]

[ "Saved you a click. I thought it might be interesting. It’s not. The donors seem to be from Denmark.", ">\n\nOverseas specifically... Due to not being allowed to be an anonymous sperm donor in the UK", ">\n\nOn the flip side of this I saw what I think was a \"60 Minutes\" special a long time ago about sperm banks in the US. At the time it was claimed that a large contingent of women (many single, lonely) who wanted to impregnate themselves were only going for blond haired blue eyes males from supposedly upper class donors. I'm not sure if it's still like that but IIRC some people were pissed off and saw this phenomenon as a sort of undercurrent of eugenics.", ">\n\nVery similar mouthfeel.", ">\n\nViscosity is getting, and I hate that they used this word, \"chunkier\".", ">\n\nJesus F--k. How can I unread this?" ]

[ "Saved you a click. I thought it might be interesting. It’s not. The donors seem to be from Denmark.", ">\n\nOverseas specifically... Due to not being allowed to be an anonymous sperm donor in the UK", ">\n\nOn the flip side of this I saw what I think was a \"60 Minutes\" special a long time ago about sperm banks in the US. At the time it was claimed that a large contingent of women (many single, lonely) who wanted to impregnate themselves were only going for blond haired blue eyes males from supposedly upper class donors. I'm not sure if it's still like that but IIRC some people were pissed off and saw this phenomenon as a sort of undercurrent of eugenics.", ">\n\nVery similar mouthfeel.", ">\n\nViscosity is getting, and I hate that they used this word, \"chunkier\".", ">\n\nJesus F--k. How can I unread this?", ">\n\nIt came from one very dehydrated man in a Lincolnshire bathtub?" ]

[ "Saved you a click. I thought it might be interesting. It’s not. The donors seem to be from Denmark.", ">\n\nOverseas specifically... Due to not being allowed to be an anonymous sperm donor in the UK", ">\n\nOn the flip side of this I saw what I think was a \"60 Minutes\" special a long time ago about sperm banks in the US. At the time it was claimed that a large contingent of women (many single, lonely) who wanted to impregnate themselves were only going for blond haired blue eyes males from supposedly upper class donors. I'm not sure if it's still like that but IIRC some people were pissed off and saw this phenomenon as a sort of undercurrent of eugenics.", ">\n\nVery similar mouthfeel.", ">\n\nViscosity is getting, and I hate that they used this word, \"chunkier\".", ">\n\nJesus F--k. How can I unread this?", ">\n\nIt came from one very dehydrated man in a Lincolnshire bathtub?", ">\n\nIt's frozen???\nBTW, who donated that sample in the picture? Talk about a massive load! I pity whoever ends up sleeping in his wet spot." ]

[ "Saved you a click. I thought it might be interesting. It’s not. The donors seem to be from Denmark.", ">\n\nOverseas specifically... Due to not being allowed to be an anonymous sperm donor in the UK", ">\n\nOn the flip side of this I saw what I think was a \"60 Minutes\" special a long time ago about sperm banks in the US. At the time it was claimed that a large contingent of women (many single, lonely) who wanted to impregnate themselves were only going for blond haired blue eyes males from supposedly upper class donors. I'm not sure if it's still like that but IIRC some people were pissed off and saw this phenomenon as a sort of undercurrent of eugenics.", ">\n\nVery similar mouthfeel.", ">\n\nViscosity is getting, and I hate that they used this word, \"chunkier\".", ">\n\nJesus F--k. How can I unread this?", ">\n\nIt came from one very dehydrated man in a Lincolnshire bathtub?", ">\n\nIt's frozen???\nBTW, who donated that sample in the picture? Talk about a massive load! I pity whoever ends up sleeping in his wet spot.", ">\n\n..is sacred. ...is great... God is irate?" ]

[ "Saved you a click. I thought it might be interesting. It’s not. The donors seem to be from Denmark.", ">\n\nOverseas specifically... Due to not being allowed to be an anonymous sperm donor in the UK", ">\n\nOn the flip side of this I saw what I think was a \"60 Minutes\" special a long time ago about sperm banks in the US. At the time it was claimed that a large contingent of women (many single, lonely) who wanted to impregnate themselves were only going for blond haired blue eyes males from supposedly upper class donors. I'm not sure if it's still like that but IIRC some people were pissed off and saw this phenomenon as a sort of undercurrent of eugenics.", ">\n\nVery similar mouthfeel.", ">\n\nViscosity is getting, and I hate that they used this word, \"chunkier\".", ">\n\nJesus F--k. How can I unread this?", ">\n\nIt came from one very dehydrated man in a Lincolnshire bathtub?", ">\n\nIt's frozen???\nBTW, who donated that sample in the picture? Talk about a massive load! I pity whoever ends up sleeping in his wet spot.", ">\n\n..is sacred. ...is great... God is irate?", ">\n\nImagine the 'donor sessions in village halls'." ]

[ "Saved you a click. I thought it might be interesting. It’s not. The donors seem to be from Denmark.", ">\n\nOverseas specifically... Due to not being allowed to be an anonymous sperm donor in the UK", ">\n\nOn the flip side of this I saw what I think was a \"60 Minutes\" special a long time ago about sperm banks in the US. At the time it was claimed that a large contingent of women (many single, lonely) who wanted to impregnate themselves were only going for blond haired blue eyes males from supposedly upper class donors. I'm not sure if it's still like that but IIRC some people were pissed off and saw this phenomenon as a sort of undercurrent of eugenics.", ">\n\nVery similar mouthfeel.", ">\n\nViscosity is getting, and I hate that they used this word, \"chunkier\".", ">\n\nJesus F--k. How can I unread this?", ">\n\nIt came from one very dehydrated man in a Lincolnshire bathtub?", ">\n\nIt's frozen???\nBTW, who donated that sample in the picture? Talk about a massive load! I pity whoever ends up sleeping in his wet spot.", ">\n\n..is sacred. ...is great... God is irate?", ">\n\nImagine the 'donor sessions in village halls'.", ">\n\nOh shit, they're on to me.." ]

[ "Saved you a click. I thought it might be interesting. It’s not. The donors seem to be from Denmark.", ">\n\nOverseas specifically... Due to not being allowed to be an anonymous sperm donor in the UK", ">\n\nOn the flip side of this I saw what I think was a \"60 Minutes\" special a long time ago about sperm banks in the US. At the time it was claimed that a large contingent of women (many single, lonely) who wanted to impregnate themselves were only going for blond haired blue eyes males from supposedly upper class donors. I'm not sure if it's still like that but IIRC some people were pissed off and saw this phenomenon as a sort of undercurrent of eugenics.", ">\n\nVery similar mouthfeel.", ">\n\nViscosity is getting, and I hate that they used this word, \"chunkier\".", ">\n\nJesus F--k. How can I unread this?", ">\n\nIt came from one very dehydrated man in a Lincolnshire bathtub?", ">\n\nIt's frozen???\nBTW, who donated that sample in the picture? Talk about a massive load! I pity whoever ends up sleeping in his wet spot.", ">\n\n..is sacred. ...is great... God is irate?", ">\n\nImagine the 'donor sessions in village halls'.", ">\n\nOh shit, they're on to me..", ">\n\nThey're all members of the Ministry of Funny Walks?" ]

[ "Saved you a click. I thought it might be interesting. It’s not. The donors seem to be from Denmark.", ">\n\nOverseas specifically... Due to not being allowed to be an anonymous sperm donor in the UK", ">\n\nOn the flip side of this I saw what I think was a \"60 Minutes\" special a long time ago about sperm banks in the US. At the time it was claimed that a large contingent of women (many single, lonely) who wanted to impregnate themselves were only going for blond haired blue eyes males from supposedly upper class donors. I'm not sure if it's still like that but IIRC some people were pissed off and saw this phenomenon as a sort of undercurrent of eugenics.", ">\n\nVery similar mouthfeel.", ">\n\nViscosity is getting, and I hate that they used this word, \"chunkier\".", ">\n\nJesus F--k. How can I unread this?", ">\n\nIt came from one very dehydrated man in a Lincolnshire bathtub?", ">\n\nIt's frozen???\nBTW, who donated that sample in the picture? Talk about a massive load! I pity whoever ends up sleeping in his wet spot.", ">\n\n..is sacred. ...is great... God is irate?", ">\n\nImagine the 'donor sessions in village halls'.", ">\n\nOh shit, they're on to me..", ">\n\nThey're all members of the Ministry of Funny Walks?", ">\n\nIt all tastes the same." ]

[ "Saved you a click. I thought it might be interesting. It’s not. The donors seem to be from Denmark.", ">\n\nOverseas specifically... Due to not being allowed to be an anonymous sperm donor in the UK", ">\n\nOn the flip side of this I saw what I think was a \"60 Minutes\" special a long time ago about sperm banks in the US. At the time it was claimed that a large contingent of women (many single, lonely) who wanted to impregnate themselves were only going for blond haired blue eyes males from supposedly upper class donors. I'm not sure if it's still like that but IIRC some people were pissed off and saw this phenomenon as a sort of undercurrent of eugenics.", ">\n\nVery similar mouthfeel.", ">\n\nViscosity is getting, and I hate that they used this word, \"chunkier\".", ">\n\nJesus F--k. How can I unread this?", ">\n\nIt came from one very dehydrated man in a Lincolnshire bathtub?", ">\n\nIt's frozen???\nBTW, who donated that sample in the picture? Talk about a massive load! I pity whoever ends up sleeping in his wet spot.", ">\n\n..is sacred. ...is great... God is irate?", ">\n\nImagine the 'donor sessions in village halls'.", ">\n\nOh shit, they're on to me..", ">\n\nThey're all members of the Ministry of Funny Walks?", ">\n\nIt all tastes the same.", ">\n\nLike fish and chips?" ]

[ "Saved you a click. I thought it might be interesting. It’s not. The donors seem to be from Denmark.", ">\n\nOverseas specifically... Due to not being allowed to be an anonymous sperm donor in the UK", ">\n\nOn the flip side of this I saw what I think was a \"60 Minutes\" special a long time ago about sperm banks in the US. At the time it was claimed that a large contingent of women (many single, lonely) who wanted to impregnate themselves were only going for blond haired blue eyes males from supposedly upper class donors. I'm not sure if it's still like that but IIRC some people were pissed off and saw this phenomenon as a sort of undercurrent of eugenics.", ">\n\nVery similar mouthfeel.", ">\n\nViscosity is getting, and I hate that they used this word, \"chunkier\".", ">\n\nJesus F--k. How can I unread this?", ">\n\nIt came from one very dehydrated man in a Lincolnshire bathtub?", ">\n\nIt's frozen???\nBTW, who donated that sample in the picture? Talk about a massive load! I pity whoever ends up sleeping in his wet spot.", ">\n\n..is sacred. ...is great... God is irate?", ">\n\nImagine the 'donor sessions in village halls'.", ">\n\nOh shit, they're on to me..", ">\n\nThey're all members of the Ministry of Funny Walks?", ">\n\nIt all tastes the same.", ">\n\nLike fish and chips?", ">\n\nIf jizz tastes like fish and chips then I'll meet you behind the dumpster later." ]

[]

[ "Temple University professor Marc Lamont Hill tweeted: \"Diamond - of the right-wing, Trump-loving duo Diamond and Silk - has died. In late November, she was hospitalized due to COVID-19. The duo was fired by Fox News a couple of years ago for spreading misinformation about COVID-19 and vaccines. You cannot script this stuff.\"" ]

[ "Temple University professor Marc Lamont Hill tweeted: \"Diamond - of the right-wing, Trump-loving duo Diamond and Silk - has died. In late November, she was hospitalized due to COVID-19. The duo was fired by Fox News a couple of years ago for spreading misinformation about COVID-19 and vaccines. You cannot script this stuff.\"", ">\n\nIt sounds weird, but they actually trademarked the name Diamond and Silk® together as a single pair, which is neither of their actual names (Ineitha Lynnette Hardaway and Herneitha Rochelle Hardaway)" ]

[ "Temple University professor Marc Lamont Hill tweeted: \"Diamond - of the right-wing, Trump-loving duo Diamond and Silk - has died. In late November, she was hospitalized due to COVID-19. The duo was fired by Fox News a couple of years ago for spreading misinformation about COVID-19 and vaccines. You cannot script this stuff.\"", ">\n\nIt sounds weird, but they actually trademarked the name Diamond and Silk® together as a single pair, which is neither of their actual names (Ineitha Lynnette Hardaway and Herneitha Rochelle Hardaway)", ">\n\nI get it's the name of their business venture at this point but it just feels very on par with Herman Cain's Twitter continuing to tweet Covid disinformation after his death." ]

[ "Temple University professor Marc Lamont Hill tweeted: \"Diamond - of the right-wing, Trump-loving duo Diamond and Silk - has died. In late November, she was hospitalized due to COVID-19. The duo was fired by Fox News a couple of years ago for spreading misinformation about COVID-19 and vaccines. You cannot script this stuff.\"", ">\n\nIt sounds weird, but they actually trademarked the name Diamond and Silk® together as a single pair, which is neither of their actual names (Ineitha Lynnette Hardaway and Herneitha Rochelle Hardaway)", ">\n\nI get it's the name of their business venture at this point but it just feels very on par with Herman Cain's Twitter continuing to tweet Covid disinformation after his death.", ">\n\nThat account is run by a troll farm based out of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan" ]

[ "Temple University professor Marc Lamont Hill tweeted: \"Diamond - of the right-wing, Trump-loving duo Diamond and Silk - has died. In late November, she was hospitalized due to COVID-19. The duo was fired by Fox News a couple of years ago for spreading misinformation about COVID-19 and vaccines. You cannot script this stuff.\"", ">\n\nIt sounds weird, but they actually trademarked the name Diamond and Silk® together as a single pair, which is neither of their actual names (Ineitha Lynnette Hardaway and Herneitha Rochelle Hardaway)", ">\n\nI get it's the name of their business venture at this point but it just feels very on par with Herman Cain's Twitter continuing to tweet Covid disinformation after his death.", ">\n\nThat account is run by a troll farm based out of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan", ">\n\nIs Herman Cain dead? Nein Nein Nein!" ]

[ "Temple University professor Marc Lamont Hill tweeted: \"Diamond - of the right-wing, Trump-loving duo Diamond and Silk - has died. In late November, she was hospitalized due to COVID-19. The duo was fired by Fox News a couple of years ago for spreading misinformation about COVID-19 and vaccines. You cannot script this stuff.\"", ">\n\nIt sounds weird, but they actually trademarked the name Diamond and Silk® together as a single pair, which is neither of their actual names (Ineitha Lynnette Hardaway and Herneitha Rochelle Hardaway)", ">\n\nI get it's the name of their business venture at this point but it just feels very on par with Herman Cain's Twitter continuing to tweet Covid disinformation after his death.", ">\n\nThat account is run by a troll farm based out of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan", ">\n\nIs Herman Cain dead? Nein Nein Nein!", ">\n\n*nyet nyet nyet" ]

[ "Temple University professor Marc Lamont Hill tweeted: \"Diamond - of the right-wing, Trump-loving duo Diamond and Silk - has died. In late November, she was hospitalized due to COVID-19. The duo was fired by Fox News a couple of years ago for spreading misinformation about COVID-19 and vaccines. You cannot script this stuff.\"", ">\n\nIt sounds weird, but they actually trademarked the name Diamond and Silk® together as a single pair, which is neither of their actual names (Ineitha Lynnette Hardaway and Herneitha Rochelle Hardaway)", ">\n\nI get it's the name of their business venture at this point but it just feels very on par with Herman Cain's Twitter continuing to tweet Covid disinformation after his death.", ">\n\nThat account is run by a troll farm based out of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan", ">\n\nIs Herman Cain dead? Nein Nein Nein!", ">\n\n*nyet nyet nyet", ">\n\n*hyuk hyuk hyuk" ]

[ "Temple University professor Marc Lamont Hill tweeted: \"Diamond - of the right-wing, Trump-loving duo Diamond and Silk - has died. In late November, she was hospitalized due to COVID-19. The duo was fired by Fox News a couple of years ago for spreading misinformation about COVID-19 and vaccines. You cannot script this stuff.\"", ">\n\nIt sounds weird, but they actually trademarked the name Diamond and Silk® together as a single pair, which is neither of their actual names (Ineitha Lynnette Hardaway and Herneitha Rochelle Hardaway)", ">\n\nI get it's the name of their business venture at this point but it just feels very on par with Herman Cain's Twitter continuing to tweet Covid disinformation after his death.", ">\n\nThat account is run by a troll farm based out of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan", ">\n\nIs Herman Cain dead? Nein Nein Nein!", ">\n\n*nyet nyet nyet", ">\n\n*hyuk hyuk hyuk", ">\n\nThey didn't announce the cause of death so it's probably Covid." ]

[ "Temple University professor Marc Lamont Hill tweeted: \"Diamond - of the right-wing, Trump-loving duo Diamond and Silk - has died. In late November, she was hospitalized due to COVID-19. The duo was fired by Fox News a couple of years ago for spreading misinformation about COVID-19 and vaccines. You cannot script this stuff.\"", ">\n\nIt sounds weird, but they actually trademarked the name Diamond and Silk® together as a single pair, which is neither of their actual names (Ineitha Lynnette Hardaway and Herneitha Rochelle Hardaway)", ">\n\nI get it's the name of their business venture at this point but it just feels very on par with Herman Cain's Twitter continuing to tweet Covid disinformation after his death.", ">\n\nThat account is run by a troll farm based out of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan", ">\n\nIs Herman Cain dead? Nein Nein Nein!", ">\n\n*nyet nyet nyet", ">\n\n*hyuk hyuk hyuk", ">\n\nThey didn't announce the cause of death so it's probably Covid.", ">\n\nIt's definitely covid. She was hospitalized for it in November." ]

[ "Temple University professor Marc Lamont Hill tweeted: \"Diamond - of the right-wing, Trump-loving duo Diamond and Silk - has died. In late November, she was hospitalized due to COVID-19. The duo was fired by Fox News a couple of years ago for spreading misinformation about COVID-19 and vaccines. You cannot script this stuff.\"", ">\n\nIt sounds weird, but they actually trademarked the name Diamond and Silk® together as a single pair, which is neither of their actual names (Ineitha Lynnette Hardaway and Herneitha Rochelle Hardaway)", ">\n\nI get it's the name of their business venture at this point but it just feels very on par with Herman Cain's Twitter continuing to tweet Covid disinformation after his death.", ">\n\nThat account is run by a troll farm based out of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan", ">\n\nIs Herman Cain dead? Nein Nein Nein!", ">\n\n*nyet nyet nyet", ">\n\n*hyuk hyuk hyuk", ">\n\nThey didn't announce the cause of death so it's probably Covid.", ">\n\nIt's definitely covid. She was hospitalized for it in November.", ">\n\n\nIt's definitely covid. She was hospitalized for it in November.\n\nIf she died from pneumonia (caused by Covid), \"Silk\" will claim it was pneumonia. Same for a heart attack or organ failure caused by Covid. Whatever the last failure before death was, that is what they will claim as the cause of death." ]

[ "Temple University professor Marc Lamont Hill tweeted: \"Diamond - of the right-wing, Trump-loving duo Diamond and Silk - has died. In late November, she was hospitalized due to COVID-19. The duo was fired by Fox News a couple of years ago for spreading misinformation about COVID-19 and vaccines. You cannot script this stuff.\"", ">\n\nIt sounds weird, but they actually trademarked the name Diamond and Silk® together as a single pair, which is neither of their actual names (Ineitha Lynnette Hardaway and Herneitha Rochelle Hardaway)", ">\n\nI get it's the name of their business venture at this point but it just feels very on par with Herman Cain's Twitter continuing to tweet Covid disinformation after his death.", ">\n\nThat account is run by a troll farm based out of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan", ">\n\nIs Herman Cain dead? Nein Nein Nein!", ">\n\n*nyet nyet nyet", ">\n\n*hyuk hyuk hyuk", ">\n\nThey didn't announce the cause of death so it's probably Covid.", ">\n\nIt's definitely covid. She was hospitalized for it in November.", ">\n\n\nIt's definitely covid. She was hospitalized for it in November.\n\nIf she died from pneumonia (caused by Covid), \"Silk\" will claim it was pneumonia. Same for a heart attack or organ failure caused by Covid. Whatever the last failure before death was, that is what they will claim as the cause of death.", ">\n\nWhatever pre-existing conditions she may have had, or diseases she sustained afterwards, COVID certainly didn't help! Either her bout with COVID further weakened organs that were already damaged, or her immune system was so depressed that she got pneumonia as a result. \nHer death certificate and/or medical records will most likely list a cause or causes that aren't specifically \"COVID,\" but it should be in there somewhere. In any case, how high on the list it is will determine which side of the aisle screams about it the loudest." ]

[ "Temple University professor Marc Lamont Hill tweeted: \"Diamond - of the right-wing, Trump-loving duo Diamond and Silk - has died. In late November, she was hospitalized due to COVID-19. The duo was fired by Fox News a couple of years ago for spreading misinformation about COVID-19 and vaccines. You cannot script this stuff.\"", ">\n\nIt sounds weird, but they actually trademarked the name Diamond and Silk® together as a single pair, which is neither of their actual names (Ineitha Lynnette Hardaway and Herneitha Rochelle Hardaway)", ">\n\nI get it's the name of their business venture at this point but it just feels very on par with Herman Cain's Twitter continuing to tweet Covid disinformation after his death.", ">\n\nThat account is run by a troll farm based out of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan", ">\n\nIs Herman Cain dead? Nein Nein Nein!", ">\n\n*nyet nyet nyet", ">\n\n*hyuk hyuk hyuk", ">\n\nThey didn't announce the cause of death so it's probably Covid.", ">\n\nIt's definitely covid. She was hospitalized for it in November.", ">\n\n\nIt's definitely covid. She was hospitalized for it in November.\n\nIf she died from pneumonia (caused by Covid), \"Silk\" will claim it was pneumonia. Same for a heart attack or organ failure caused by Covid. Whatever the last failure before death was, that is what they will claim as the cause of death.", ">\n\nWhatever pre-existing conditions she may have had, or diseases she sustained afterwards, COVID certainly didn't help! Either her bout with COVID further weakened organs that were already damaged, or her immune system was so depressed that she got pneumonia as a result. \nHer death certificate and/or medical records will most likely list a cause or causes that aren't specifically \"COVID,\" but it should be in there somewhere. In any case, how high on the list it is will determine which side of the aisle screams about it the loudest.", ">\n\nThese mental gymnastics are dumb as shit. She was hospitalized for COVID.\n\n\nCovid didn’t help!\n\n\nIf they would be alive except for COVID, they died from COVID." ]

[ "Temple University professor Marc Lamont Hill tweeted: \"Diamond - of the right-wing, Trump-loving duo Diamond and Silk - has died. In late November, she was hospitalized due to COVID-19. The duo was fired by Fox News a couple of years ago for spreading misinformation about COVID-19 and vaccines. You cannot script this stuff.\"", ">\n\nIt sounds weird, but they actually trademarked the name Diamond and Silk® together as a single pair, which is neither of their actual names (Ineitha Lynnette Hardaway and Herneitha Rochelle Hardaway)", ">\n\nI get it's the name of their business venture at this point but it just feels very on par with Herman Cain's Twitter continuing to tweet Covid disinformation after his death.", ">\n\nThat account is run by a troll farm based out of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan", ">\n\nIs Herman Cain dead? Nein Nein Nein!", ">\n\n*nyet nyet nyet", ">\n\n*hyuk hyuk hyuk", ">\n\nThey didn't announce the cause of death so it's probably Covid.", ">\n\nIt's definitely covid. She was hospitalized for it in November.", ">\n\n\nIt's definitely covid. She was hospitalized for it in November.\n\nIf she died from pneumonia (caused by Covid), \"Silk\" will claim it was pneumonia. Same for a heart attack or organ failure caused by Covid. Whatever the last failure before death was, that is what they will claim as the cause of death.", ">\n\nWhatever pre-existing conditions she may have had, or diseases she sustained afterwards, COVID certainly didn't help! Either her bout with COVID further weakened organs that were already damaged, or her immune system was so depressed that she got pneumonia as a result. \nHer death certificate and/or medical records will most likely list a cause or causes that aren't specifically \"COVID,\" but it should be in there somewhere. In any case, how high on the list it is will determine which side of the aisle screams about it the loudest.", ">\n\nThese mental gymnastics are dumb as shit. She was hospitalized for COVID.\n\n\nCovid didn’t help!\n\n\nIf they would be alive except for COVID, they died from COVID.", ">\n\nThis takes me back to the Delta wave, when COVID was mowing down right wing talk radio hosts left and right. None of them were vaccinated and had spent the previous year and a half ranting about vaccines conspiracy theories and saying COVID was just a cold, no reason to shut down the economy." ]

[ "Temple University professor Marc Lamont Hill tweeted: \"Diamond - of the right-wing, Trump-loving duo Diamond and Silk - has died. In late November, she was hospitalized due to COVID-19. The duo was fired by Fox News a couple of years ago for spreading misinformation about COVID-19 and vaccines. You cannot script this stuff.\"", ">\n\nIt sounds weird, but they actually trademarked the name Diamond and Silk® together as a single pair, which is neither of their actual names (Ineitha Lynnette Hardaway and Herneitha Rochelle Hardaway)", ">\n\nI get it's the name of their business venture at this point but it just feels very on par with Herman Cain's Twitter continuing to tweet Covid disinformation after his death.", ">\n\nThat account is run by a troll farm based out of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan", ">\n\nIs Herman Cain dead? Nein Nein Nein!", ">\n\n*nyet nyet nyet", ">\n\n*hyuk hyuk hyuk", ">\n\nThey didn't announce the cause of death so it's probably Covid.", ">\n\nIt's definitely covid. She was hospitalized for it in November.", ">\n\n\nIt's definitely covid. She was hospitalized for it in November.\n\nIf she died from pneumonia (caused by Covid), \"Silk\" will claim it was pneumonia. Same for a heart attack or organ failure caused by Covid. Whatever the last failure before death was, that is what they will claim as the cause of death.", ">\n\nWhatever pre-existing conditions she may have had, or diseases she sustained afterwards, COVID certainly didn't help! Either her bout with COVID further weakened organs that were already damaged, or her immune system was so depressed that she got pneumonia as a result. \nHer death certificate and/or medical records will most likely list a cause or causes that aren't specifically \"COVID,\" but it should be in there somewhere. In any case, how high on the list it is will determine which side of the aisle screams about it the loudest.", ">\n\nThese mental gymnastics are dumb as shit. She was hospitalized for COVID.\n\n\nCovid didn’t help!\n\n\nIf they would be alive except for COVID, they died from COVID.", ">\n\nThis takes me back to the Delta wave, when COVID was mowing down right wing talk radio hosts left and right. None of them were vaccinated and had spent the previous year and a half ranting about vaccines conspiracy theories and saying COVID was just a cold, no reason to shut down the economy.", ">\n\nAll the while Tucker Carlson and all the highly paid right wing news caster were safely vaccinated working from home telling all their viewers they should be out working in person." ]

[ "Temple University professor Marc Lamont Hill tweeted: \"Diamond - of the right-wing, Trump-loving duo Diamond and Silk - has died. In late November, she was hospitalized due to COVID-19. The duo was fired by Fox News a couple of years ago for spreading misinformation about COVID-19 and vaccines. You cannot script this stuff.\"", ">\n\nIt sounds weird, but they actually trademarked the name Diamond and Silk® together as a single pair, which is neither of their actual names (Ineitha Lynnette Hardaway and Herneitha Rochelle Hardaway)", ">\n\nI get it's the name of their business venture at this point but it just feels very on par with Herman Cain's Twitter continuing to tweet Covid disinformation after his death.", ">\n\nThat account is run by a troll farm based out of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan", ">\n\nIs Herman Cain dead? Nein Nein Nein!", ">\n\n*nyet nyet nyet", ">\n\n*hyuk hyuk hyuk", ">\n\nThey didn't announce the cause of death so it's probably Covid.", ">\n\nIt's definitely covid. She was hospitalized for it in November.", ">\n\n\nIt's definitely covid. She was hospitalized for it in November.\n\nIf she died from pneumonia (caused by Covid), \"Silk\" will claim it was pneumonia. Same for a heart attack or organ failure caused by Covid. Whatever the last failure before death was, that is what they will claim as the cause of death.", ">\n\nWhatever pre-existing conditions she may have had, or diseases she sustained afterwards, COVID certainly didn't help! Either her bout with COVID further weakened organs that were already damaged, or her immune system was so depressed that she got pneumonia as a result. \nHer death certificate and/or medical records will most likely list a cause or causes that aren't specifically \"COVID,\" but it should be in there somewhere. In any case, how high on the list it is will determine which side of the aisle screams about it the loudest.", ">\n\nThese mental gymnastics are dumb as shit. She was hospitalized for COVID.\n\n\nCovid didn’t help!\n\n\nIf they would be alive except for COVID, they died from COVID.", ">\n\nThis takes me back to the Delta wave, when COVID was mowing down right wing talk radio hosts left and right. None of them were vaccinated and had spent the previous year and a half ranting about vaccines conspiracy theories and saying COVID was just a cold, no reason to shut down the economy.", ">\n\nAll the while Tucker Carlson and all the highly paid right wing news caster were safely vaccinated working from home telling all their viewers they should be out working in person.", ">\n\nTucker Carlson wasn't just working from home, he was working from a studio he in his vacation home in Maine. He fucked off all the way to the middle of nowhere to get away from Corona." ]