• Rottcodd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    133
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Gotta love the irony of Gaetz condemning McCarthy for not being “a team player.”

  • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    107
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Prominent member of the “Fuck Everyone Who Isn’t Me” Party fucks over his party.

    Shocking!

  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Wow, so if a couple more Republicans either retire or die… control of the house could switch parties. I did not have “McCarthy backbone underflow exception” on my bingo card for last year lol

    • Wrench@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Taking my ball and going home” is definitely a Republican playbook move. Not surprising in the slightest

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      So Democrats would go back to having a majority in the house and just enough Democratic senators voting with Republicans.

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        Control of the house is important in the context of the transfer of power, or the continuation of the current administration if reelected. I would absolutely expect Johnson (the current speaker) to do something fucky - especially if Trump is a candidate in the general, and isn’t disqualified (as he should be automatically (A14S3).

    • jballs@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      They still have a 219-213 majority. So a couple retiring or dying wouldn’t do the trick. If 3 of them switched parties though, that would be nuts.

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Huh, for some reason I thought there was a few more seats that had either shifted around or been vacated, but I just re-checked and it seems there’s not. Thank you for the correction.

    • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Don’t get any hopes up.

      The last time Democrats had a supermajority, their biggest legislative achievement was a health care band-aid dreamed up by the ultra conservative heritage foundation designed to ensure big health insurance keeps profiting off sickness and death, and passed originally by Republican Governor Mitt Romney. And there are still uninsured Americans, and people being economically destroyed despite having supposed health coverage.

      Republicans are the greater villains, and I vote for Democrats solely on that basis of least bad harm reduction, but lets not pretend either party is the people’s champion, or at all interested in addressing our disgusting, embarrassing, massive socioeconomic inequity.

      We have the villain party®, the feckless wet noodle party(D), and within the feckless wet noodle party, all of about 2-5 people between both chambers of Congress who openly advocate for policy that would actually do good for most of the citizenry. And those 2-5 are despised by both parties proper far more than those parties hate one another.

      • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        50
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The Dems had 59 senate seats, not 60. They never had an actual supermajority. The 60th seat was an independent that caucused with dems, Lieberman, and who single handly killed single payer because he had several large insurance companies HQ’ed in his state and wanted the payoff.

        Obama did fuck up in trying to negotiate with the GOP for a year, only to have them all vote no. He also fucked up by not pushing it through before ted Kennedy’s vacant seat was filled by a Republican.

        So what we got from that “not actually a super majority” was a shit system that still got 60 more million americans on some kind of health insurance, and that number is climbing. It removed pre-existing condition as the primary “dont have to pay” card for insurance companies, and it set maximum profits for them to boot.

        Overall it’s still pretty fucking weak, but it is something that has helped basically every american, and has helped some of them greatly.

        By the by, this is also why “obama should have made abortion legal” was a hard sell. The lack of an actual super majority and about 4-5 anti-choice dem senators. With no one thinking the supreme court would ever overrule roe v wade, it made sense to spend politcal capitol trying to get universal healthcare instead. Too bad they didnt really succeed.

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh I 100% agree. If Republicans weren’t the only other option, I would never vote for any Democrat who wasn’t a staunch progressive. But we’re trapped in a two party system that’s trying to kill us.

      • Twinklebreeze @lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        Don’t get your hopes up. The literal fascists are barely worse than party whose goals don’t align with mine exactly.

        • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Since when is a villain “barely” worse than a feckless wet noodle?

          A murderous mugger is a lot worse than a pathetic coward that pisses their pants when confronted.

    • stoly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’d say it’s typical actually for a reactionary. The goal for him and his ilk is power, not policy. If he can’t have power, he doesn’t care.

  • Rentlar
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    61
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    So, Mr. Gaetz, if you really feel that House Speaker Pelosi was better, maybe it’s time to let the adults in the room get governing? You know, like Mr. Jeffries and his crew?

    That way, you and the rest of the Republicans can get back to your whiny corner without any worry of responsibility?

  • Neato@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    1 year ago

    But McCarthy’s departure was notable for one amusing, and politically significant reason. With the end of his tenure as the representative from California’s 20th Congressional District, McCarthy—in what appears to be a fit of pique—screwed over the House Republican Caucus that he had led until his unceremonious removal from the speakership last fall. By choosing to quit at the end of 2023, McCarthy took with him the one thing he had to offer his fellow partisans: protection for their rapidly dwindling majority.

  • Jaysyn@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Matt Gaetz should be ecstatic about this.

    The GOP will never throw him over now, no matter how many teenagers he rapes.

      • betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Makes sense that they’d be looking for a new hookup since their last guy “killed himself” in his cell while the cameras were experiencing technical difficulties.

    • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Plus he and his fellow psychos have more power over the GOP. The problem is their typical "fail to govern to show that government doesn’t work is going a little too well and people are getting wise.

    • cogman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This actually changes a lot. If house republicans put up particularly MAGAy bills, their fellow members in tight districts can’t safely either not vote or vote against those bills. Otherwise, their vote will be used against them in campaign ads that very well may end their career. Voting for the bill will upset their moderate voters, voting against will upset the MAGA voters and the rest of the caucus.

      Traditionally, for more controversial bills, Rs in moderate districts would abstain to stay off the radar.

      So, to keep the caucus the safest move for the Rs is to not bring up anything (which, notable with the slim majority they have now, they’ve already slowed bills rolling out). But then Ds can very easily still campaign against the Rs in purple districts for being do-nothing politicians.

      • Countess425@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        The Government will shutdown on Jan 15th if they don’t pass some sort of legislation, and that’s also super bad for the “governing” party.