Speaker of the House election

We Have a Speaker​

Mike Johnson (R-LA) was again elected Speaker of the House - on the first ballot. The vote was not without drama. Initially, Johnson received 216 votes to 215 votes for Jeffries; three representatives (Massie, Norman, and Self) voted for others. After about 30 minutes, Johnson, Norman, and Self exited the chamber, presumably to talk about how to move their votes to Johnson's column. About 20 minutes after that, Norman and Self changed their votes to Johnson, bringing his total to the magic 218 number.

President-elect Donald Trump was especially vocal in his endorsement of Johnson, aiding in whipping votes by calling Republican holdouts - a marked departure from his actions in 2023, when now-former Rep. Kevin McCarthy was elected Speaker after 15 rounds of voting.

There were never really any alternatives and it was pretty dumbass to ever think there were: Critics within the party who opposed Johnson floated names like Steve Scalise, Jim Jordan, and Tom Emmer as potential replacements. None of them have the necessary votes to secure the speakership. This lack of alternatives underscores the practicality of keeping Johnson at the helm. Attempts to oust him would only plunge the House into chaos, a scenario Republicans are keen to avoid with pivotal legislative priorities looming. This is a great start to Trump's Presidency!

https://redstate.com/jenvanlaar/2025/01/03/breaking-speaker-election-n2183905
 
another libtard post that just didn't age well, what a bunch of losers, sit back and just shhhhhh, over and over and over, your posts are just not aging well, even when a few days old, clowns.
 
The Republicans will all be on board for those votes
And what are they thinking they will propose? I'm a bit flummoxed by my politicians saying that they have a "mandate" when the incoming administration slid in on LESS than 50% of all voters.

They might as well start campaigning for the mid-term election because, unfortunately for them, any effort to reduce the benefits we paid in to for our entire careers will be met with derision:

https://www.newsnationnow.com/business/your-money/social-security-medicare-medicaid/

I mean. Really? A mandate? If you want to bring spending under control, don't be giving tax breaks to billionaires.
 
And what are they thinking they will propose? I'm a bit flummoxed by my politicians saying that they have a "mandate" when the incoming administration slid in on LESS than 50% of all voters.

They might as well start campaigning for the mid-term election because, unfortunately for them, any effort to reduce the benefits we paid in to for our entire careers will be met with derision:

https://www.newsnationnow.com/business/your-money/social-security-medicare-medicaid/

I mean. Really? A mandate? If you want to bring spending under control, don't be giving tax breaks to billionaires.
Republicans have been wanting to end SS, Medicare, and the ACA since they were enacted. They aren’t going to waste their chance now.

They may just let SS die off on its own. It’s going to start running out of $$ by 2033 if nothing is done to fix it.
 
Republicans have been wanting to end SS, Medicare, and the ACA since they were enacted. They aren’t going to waste their chance now.

They may just let SS die off on its own. It’s going to start running out of $$ by 2033 if nothing is done to fix it.
Yup, and dems are OK with that. Rather than fix it dems would rather let it grow uncontrolled, like a malignant tumor. I wonder what democrats will propose when the interest on the debt is more than revenue.
 
This didnt turn out the way Butters’ Beta Bois had fantasized.

Stand down, Bois!

Put the Jergens away!

Lol

The House of Representatives will attempt to elect a Speaker on January 3. Will Mike Johnson get enough votes, or will the Free-Dumb Caucus prevent that?

And if the House can’t elect a Speaker by January 6th, what impact does it have on counting the electoral college votes?

Roll Call has a detailed explanation




😆
 
Maybe do something simple like up the retirement age.
If you were half as well-informed as you are opinionated, you would be aware that it's your side of the aisle that's been calling for that, for quite some time now.
 
If you were half as well-informed as you are opinionated, you would be aware that it's your side of the aisle that's been calling for that, for quite some time now.
What's your point? I'm up for fixing it. Remember the howling the democrats spewed against Trump accusing him of tampering with SS. Don't be a hypocrite.
 
What's your point? I'm up for fixing it.
If you say so. But the fact that we could either keep it solvent it via progressive taxation OR we could put it farther out of reach for everyone currently under 65, and you prefer the latter, makes me wonder if "fixing" it is really what you want to do.
Remember the howling the democrats spewed against Trump accusing him of tampering with SS. Don't be a hypocrite.
There's nothing hypocritical about thinking right-wing "ideas" that were really intended to sabotage Social Security (word to the wise: don't abbreviate that!) were wrongheaded then and are wrongheaded now.
 
Back
Top