Welcome to the clown show. 15 ballots in January for this. Republicans need to get their house in order. Its embarrassing. Or, at least, it should be. First time in history the Speaker’s been ejected like this.
>The only solution is for Republicans to start working with Democrats across the isle and just ignore the clowns.
Those "clowns" actually represent the views of the republican voter base, not donors in the military-industry complex. A decade ago democrats would have been celebrating an anti-war win like this, but now roles have swapped and democrats have become the party of the warmongers.
The US isn't at war in Ukraine, we're not fighting there. Nobody who's actually anti-war looks at Russia's invasion and says "oh that's fine let it happen", everyone supports the right to defend yourself.
The US is sending crazy amounts of money over there while average Americans are seeing their living standards get worse and worse. Grassroots republicans want Ukraine to fight their own war with their own money, not keep sending money over their while Americans go hungry.
So then we're not worrying about the "anti-war" position anymore, alright.
I mean, grassroots Republicans elected Reagan who beat the Soviets and Bush who wanted to "fight them over there so we don't face them here", they're certainly comfortable with spending money on the military.
They haven't historically wanted to spend that money on welfare though, so I'm not sure that Americans are going hungry because of Ukraine.
Well, in this case the war was started by someone else, with neither aid nor encouragement by anyone American. Acting to help one of the fighting parties win doesn't seem noticeable "pro-war", AFAICT, it's just a question of how the war ends, as opposed to other possible ends of the same war.
Fund the war is an odd way to put it IMO, since the war would be there anyway… but leave that. I don't follow American politics. Do grassroots republicans oppose helping Ukraine now? I seem to remember that some months ago, a large majority of democratic voters did and a smaller majority of republican ones. How has the situation changed?
Politics is a clown show for me period - both sides. I like the chaos. The government that governs best is the one that governs least - so I’m always rooting for shutdowns, gridlock, automatic spending cuts, etc.
They either need to make peace with the Democrats and lose their primaries in 2024 to total MAGA nutjobs, or make peace with the MAGA nutjobs and lose the Biden districts in 2024. Either way, they lose the House in 2024.
Making peace with the Democrats would allow them to retain some dignity, but after 2016 that's not been a high priority for them. So I expect the clown show to continue.
The things they needed to do to avoid this scenario are all in the past, they're in the "Find Out" phase of the program now. Going with the Southern Strategy, then amping it up over and over, the chicanery around W.'s election, and then throwing it all in on Trump and the Tea Party.
These were all choices that set the stage for this meltdown and loss, and now it's too late to both win AND persevere.
But this is exactly what so many of them want. How many conservatives are convinced that a deadlocked or obstructionist congress is "better" for whatever reason, as if PURPOSEFUL government incompetency is a virtue
With the Republicans in disarray and the Democrats fielding Joe Biden, it seems like a good time for a 3rd party candidate for the 2024 election. Possibly the most realistic context for an actual shot at a 3rd party presidency that I've ever seen.
You have maybe missed word and I used between those two. Because my post was not clear enough that I was talking in general about both presidential and congress elections.
Yep. Passing the NPVIC is the primary way forward to regulate the Electoral College to respect the popular vote.
There is too much polarization and utopian-adjacent extremists in the US political system at present.
It would take some careful thought how to improve on what the founders could not anticipate, but the current system needs a check & balance on all 3 of POTUS, COTUS, and SCOTUS to replace an unfit-for-office official.
One possibility: Perhaps a 4th branch of government with appointed-for-life by sortition panel of elders who are a safety net "board of directors" whose only function is removal of a particularly unfit elected official by unanimous vote. Their only qualifications for candidacy is that they must be of unreproachable integrity, be at least 45, have no political ties, hold no other office, and have no financial conflicts of interest. A removed elected official would be replaced according to the succession plan for their role, a special election.
Another, more radical possibility: Do away with all political parties, unlimited dark money campaign financing, and populist voting of media celebrities. Instead, fill the highest elected offices by sortition of credentialed professionals for a single 2 year term. Instead of political parties, coalitions would form around positions on issues (more nuanced than parliamentary coalition governments). COTUS and POTUS would still exist, but they would be reduced to organizational administrators who don't need to pander to billionaires. While it takes away the illusion of a sacred freedom, it replaces it with the leadership of uncorrupted, educated people who aren't constantly seeking the approval of campaign donors.
I keep hearing comments like that, even from people otherwise in Biden's side. I try to avoid the news; what I hear is only the stuff that creeps over my barriers (and is hopefully in some sense "important").
Biden seems to be dull but moderately effective. He's had no great legislative triumphs, but that's no surprise. The few things he's tried to do dramatically, like student loan forgiveness, have been slapped down by the Supreme Court -- again, no surprise. His son appears to be a real jackass, but only after you factor out vast amounts of outright lies.
He's successfully supported the war in Ukraine, kept inflation and gas prices from getting all that much worse, oversaw the pandemic and transition out of it. Not thrilling, but competent. And yet his approval levels are worse than those of a guy who is literally under indictment for, among other things, mishandling vast amounts of classified material.
Is there something I'm missing? Or do people just want something that the President can't, and shouldn't, do?
> Is there something I'm missing? Or do people just want something that the President can't, and shouldn't, do?
I dunno, I don't get it either. "Dull but moderately effective" seems pretty damn good after the previous 4 years. Yeah, it would be nice to have an inspiring leader that brings the country together, but there's no way I'd give up "dull but moderately effective" for the slim chance that there's an inspiring leader out there and that they could get elected, and be effective in office.
So... yeah. I have trouble taking people who don't want him to re-run seriously. 81 million people voted for him, hoping he'd be better than the other guy. So hopefully they'll turn up again now that they know they were right!
His speakership was hanging by a thread from day 1. I don't see any path to a new Speaker so long as the Freedom Caucus are intent on watching the world burn.
They are okay with that, because in 40ish days that means the government shuts down, which means no more funding for Ukraine, which for some reason is really really important to the Freedom Caucus
McCarthy had a chance to do that and came out saying he would not be willing to give Dems anything at all to save his job. Right now the GOP agenda is 100% anti-liberal politics. The impeachment hearings taking place with no credible evidence is exhibit A. Advocating a government shutdown is the other. Dems basic ask would just be "can we debate some actual legislation" and the answer from the right has consistently been "no". The GOP have a 9 vote majority, 1 of them is under indictment and 10 completely unreasonable maniacs who just want to cause chaos. It's crazy but the only plausible option I see right now is for 10 GOP moderates to back Hakeem Jeffries.
> McCarthy had a chance to do that and came out saying he would not be willing to give Dems anything at all to save his job.
Yup. Which seems dumb, but... y'know, maybe he didn't want to save his job? He probably didn't want to go out like this, but there's not too much shame in being ousted by crazies. He got his name on the list of speakers of the house, and maybe he just doesn't want to do it anymore.
> It's crazy but the only plausible option I see right now is for 10 GOP moderates to back Hakeem Jeffries.
I suspect that would be a bridge too far. But getting a small number of Democrats—especially in tight districts—to vote for a moderate Republican speaker, in exchange for some concessions, probably could happen. I don't know if it would—the new Speaker would probably also need to be in a district where having Democrat support isn't seen much as a bad thing, and probably need assurances that they wouldn't be primaried. On the other hand, courting that Democrat support might cost them enough GOP support that they'd never get elected anyway. I dunno, shit's complicated.
I think you are right. I think McCarthy straight up quit. As much as it sounds plausible for a handful of moderate Dems approving a moderate Repub, it won't happen. Not least of which because at least 10 Repubs won't support a moderate Repub. They'd need at least 20 Dems to cross the aisle for somebody truly trustworthy, respected and commanding and that person just doesn't exist. The only names besides McCarthy that have been floated are all far to the right of McCarthy who had already signed off of horribly objectionable policies (shutdown and impeachment). There's just nobody who can fit the bill in the GOP. After Hakeem Jeffries, the next most likely candidate would be like bringing Newt Gingrich in off the street.
The anti-NATO pro-Russian wing of the Republican party becoming increasingly dominant sends a worrying message across the Atlantic especially to the Baltic countries.
Honestly at this point I don't see any other option than the Baltic countries developing nuclear weapons.
Yeah, from an American perspective, I wouldn't take comfort in continued support from the US to save Ukraine and others. There's a good chance funding will dry up in 45 days.
OK, I will keep this in mind, however what's different about this particular political story is that it's also extremely historic, nothing like this has ever occurred in the history of the US and this is the first speaker to ever be removed in this way; at the very least this kind of instability can have impacts on things like financial markets. I would not share a simply political story like how Joe Biden is doing in the polls are something, that's clearly a stupid story.
I'd say it's "historic" but it's not important. It will roil markets less than a shutdown would, and that story would not be particularly HN-worthy either.
Sometimes I wish there was a way to designate some posts "off topic" but still be visible on the front page -- like a topical Jubilee Day. I'm genuinely interested in what some of the HN crowd think about (some of) the non-tech, non-intellectually-curious stuff that goes on in the world.
But I suspect that we'd all just turn out to be dopey ignoramuses, opining well beyond our knowledge, and the discussion would devolve into the same canned narrative crap that we see everywhere else.
HN probably has nothing to contribute to the discussion, and policing that line through downvotes and flagging is almost certainly the prophylaxis that keeps the infection at bay. Alas.
TBF I also found this story to be intellectually interesting, like, why the Democrats quite amazingly voted in lock-step unison to vacate the seat, which is not at all how the Democratic party has behaved for the past 30 years (either in unison, or against the "status quo"). It flipped my own intellectual sticky bit at least.
If I had to guess, it's a vote of no-confidence for McCarthy's willingness to bring forward a baseless impeachment inquiry, and to coddle his toddlers. But I repeat myself.
It's hard to write that sentence in a non-partisan way (and I didn't try). This goes nowhere good, conversationally. :)
I hear you, but I don't think it's possible for an HN thread about it not to just disintegrate into partisan bits, and nasty ones at that.
(btw, if you emailed recently, I'm sorry I haven't had a chance to answer yet - it's just the inbox doing its brutal thing. if that wasn't you, please ignore.)
Politics aside, there is one mechanical aspect about this I find interesting. Basically if you have a majority vote split down party lines, all it takes is a small group (size greater than the difference between majority and minority parties) to wield quite a lot of influence. Gaetz seems like he's calling the shots in this gambit. I guess this has always been true, but interesting to watch it play out.
I suspect that the Democrats may regret not intervening when McCarthy was ousted, especially if, in the coming weeks, the Speaker job ends up with a more right-leaning candidate.
74 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 168 ms ] threadBut he didn't live up the bargain he struck with the Democrats either.
That was the reason given for his ousting.
basically he made friends with noone. the next speaker should be a little more careful
Those "clowns" actually represent the views of the republican voter base, not donors in the military-industry complex. A decade ago democrats would have been celebrating an anti-war win like this, but now roles have swapped and democrats have become the party of the warmongers.
Russia does.
Making peace with the Democrats would allow them to retain some dignity, but after 2016 that's not been a high priority for them. So I expect the clown show to continue.
These were all choices that set the stage for this meltdown and loss, and now it's too late to both win AND persevere.
There is too much polarization and utopian-adjacent extremists in the US political system at present.
It would take some careful thought how to improve on what the founders could not anticipate, but the current system needs a check & balance on all 3 of POTUS, COTUS, and SCOTUS to replace an unfit-for-office official.
One possibility: Perhaps a 4th branch of government with appointed-for-life by sortition panel of elders who are a safety net "board of directors" whose only function is removal of a particularly unfit elected official by unanimous vote. Their only qualifications for candidacy is that they must be of unreproachable integrity, be at least 45, have no political ties, hold no other office, and have no financial conflicts of interest. A removed elected official would be replaced according to the succession plan for their role, a special election.
Another, more radical possibility: Do away with all political parties, unlimited dark money campaign financing, and populist voting of media celebrities. Instead, fill the highest elected offices by sortition of credentialed professionals for a single 2 year term. Instead of political parties, coalitions would form around positions on issues (more nuanced than parliamentary coalition governments). COTUS and POTUS would still exist, but they would be reduced to organizational administrators who don't need to pander to billionaires. While it takes away the illusion of a sacred freedom, it replaces it with the leadership of uncorrupted, educated people who aren't constantly seeking the approval of campaign donors.
Biden seems to be dull but moderately effective. He's had no great legislative triumphs, but that's no surprise. The few things he's tried to do dramatically, like student loan forgiveness, have been slapped down by the Supreme Court -- again, no surprise. His son appears to be a real jackass, but only after you factor out vast amounts of outright lies.
He's successfully supported the war in Ukraine, kept inflation and gas prices from getting all that much worse, oversaw the pandemic and transition out of it. Not thrilling, but competent. And yet his approval levels are worse than those of a guy who is literally under indictment for, among other things, mishandling vast amounts of classified material.
Is there something I'm missing? Or do people just want something that the President can't, and shouldn't, do?
I dunno, I don't get it either. "Dull but moderately effective" seems pretty damn good after the previous 4 years. Yeah, it would be nice to have an inspiring leader that brings the country together, but there's no way I'd give up "dull but moderately effective" for the slim chance that there's an inspiring leader out there and that they could get elected, and be effective in office.
So... yeah. I have trouble taking people who don't want him to re-run seriously. 81 million people voted for him, hoping he'd be better than the other guy. So hopefully they'll turn up again now that they know they were right!
Well, there’s always reaching across the aisle.
Yup. Which seems dumb, but... y'know, maybe he didn't want to save his job? He probably didn't want to go out like this, but there's not too much shame in being ousted by crazies. He got his name on the list of speakers of the house, and maybe he just doesn't want to do it anymore.
> It's crazy but the only plausible option I see right now is for 10 GOP moderates to back Hakeem Jeffries.
I suspect that would be a bridge too far. But getting a small number of Democrats—especially in tight districts—to vote for a moderate Republican speaker, in exchange for some concessions, probably could happen. I don't know if it would—the new Speaker would probably also need to be in a district where having Democrat support isn't seen much as a bad thing, and probably need assurances that they wouldn't be primaried. On the other hand, courting that Democrat support might cost them enough GOP support that they'd never get elected anyway. I dunno, shit's complicated.
Doesn't mean he didn't do it, but doesn't mean he did.
Honestly at this point I don't see any other option than the Baltic countries developing nuclear weapons.
Some political overlap can be ok, but for an article to be a good HN submission, the high-order bit needs to be intellectual curiosity.
In case anyone wants more explanation, I've written extensively about how we moderate political stories on HN: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so....
Edit: Here are a couple examples:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22902490 (April 2020)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21607844 (Nov 2019)
and some related points:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23959679 (July 2020)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17014869 (May 2018)
Sometimes I wish there was a way to designate some posts "off topic" but still be visible on the front page -- like a topical Jubilee Day. I'm genuinely interested in what some of the HN crowd think about (some of) the non-tech, non-intellectually-curious stuff that goes on in the world.
But I suspect that we'd all just turn out to be dopey ignoramuses, opining well beyond our knowledge, and the discussion would devolve into the same canned narrative crap that we see everywhere else.
HN probably has nothing to contribute to the discussion, and policing that line through downvotes and flagging is almost certainly the prophylaxis that keeps the infection at bay. Alas.
It's hard to write that sentence in a non-partisan way (and I didn't try). This goes nowhere good, conversationally. :)
(btw, if you emailed recently, I'm sorry I haven't had a chance to answer yet - it's just the inbox doing its brutal thing. if that wasn't you, please ignore.)