He's the richest man in the world therefore he must be the cleverest, bestest man in the world!!!I hope our resident Trumpers are happy with President Musk.
He's the richest man in the world therefore he must be the cleverest, bestest man in the world!!!I hope our resident Trumpers are happy with President Musk.
He's also white. If the richest man were Indian, Chinese or Hispanic then perhaps they wouldn't be quite so enthusiastic.He's the richest man in the world therefore he must be the cleverest, bestest man in the world!!!
I never realized there would be an advantage to not having balls.View attachment 58184Musk gets kicked in the balls. Trump merely ridiculed.
We could say both parties, but clearly one of them was much more heavily invested in stopping that bill than the other one.If they had voted for it then the Pro-trump party would have won. So who is responsible for it failing again?
So close!We could say both parties, but clearly one of them was much more heavily invested in stopping that bill than the other one.
Absolutely. The guilty party was the one that backed out of a deal because the richest man in the world posted some complaints in Twitter.We could say both parties, but clearly one of them was much more heavily invested in stopping that bill than the other one.
Absolutely. The guilty party was the one that backed out of a deal because the richest man in the world posted some complaints in Twitter.
Can you imagine being led around by the nose by a billionaire and then simp for him at the same time? It's like a beaten dog effect in real-time.
The "guilt" for a bill failing to pass is borne in proportion to the count of the "no" votes cast.The guilty party was the one that backed out of a deal because the richest man in the world posted some complaints in Twitter.
There should be a disgusting-sounding word for putting strawmen in scare quotes."It is irresponsible and reckless for Democrats not to completely rearrange their policy priorities around the misguided tweets of unelected billionaires. Clearly, they are the true villains in this story."
Why would anyone vote yes on a broken agreement that asks for more than what was bargained?The "guilt" for a bill failing to pass is borne in proportion to the count of the "no" votes cast.
Again, I implore you all to do the math.
There was a bipartisan agreement in place and ready to go. Musk sends off a tweetstorm with a bunch of disinformation and the deal collapsed when Republicans suddenly refused to vote for it. A more right-wing bill was put forward in an attempt to make Republicans happy (which failed). Democrats didn't vote for the new bill. And you are trying to put the blame for the bill's failure on the Democrats.There should be a disgusting-sounding word for putting strawmen in scare quotes.
I'm sure you know this isn't how it works. Reinventing the rules of the game to insist you have "won" is just childish obstinacy.The "guilt" for a bill failing to pass is borne in proportion to the count of the "no" votes cast.
Again, I implore you all to do the math.
Meet me half way!Look, I know that a lot of people have internalized Murc's Law, but Democrats are not obligated to vote for things they disagree with, they are not obligated to be bipartisan in the face of Republican partisanship, and they are not obligated to rescue Republicans from self-inflicted wounds.
I mean... The richest man in China is probably a scumbag beyond Musk's wildest dreams.He's also white. If the richest man were Indian, Chinese or Hispanic then perhaps they wouldn't be quite so enthusiastic.
So... Same MO as all the Chinese billionaires, then?I mean... The richest man in China is probably a scumbag beyond Musk's wildest dreams.
And I suspect most Americans would be alright with an Indian-American or Chinese-American billionaire, so long as they perceived his wealth as arising from good old fashioned western capitalist ventures.
What fraction of Republicans refused to vote for this "deal" compared to what fraction of Democrats refused?Musk sends off a tweetstorm with a bunch of disinformation and the deal collapsed when Republicans suddenly refused to vote for it.
I, too, have been guilty of being certain in the face of evidence to the contrary.I'm sure you know this isn't how it works.
Show us what was bargained for and who agreed to it.Why would anyone vote yes on a broken agreement that asks for more than what was bargained?
I'm not sure there was a full vote for the original bipartisan deal, or at least I can't find a number on that. There were basically no Democratic votes for the second, post-Musk-Tweet, all GOP plan.What fraction of Republicans refused to vote for this "deal" compared to what fraction of Democrats refused?
If there wasn't a vote on it, then we cannot attribute credit or blame except perhaps to House leadership.I'm not sure there was a full vote for the original bipartisan deal, or at least I can't find a number on that. There were basically no Democratic votes for the second, post-Musk-Tweet, all GOP plan.
???If there wasn't a vote on it, then we cannot attribute credit or blame except perhaps to House leadership.
Did any Democrats publish the essentials of this bipartisan deal?
Ya think??"House rejects Speaker Johnson's revised funding bill as government barrels toward a shutdown" see post #36
If you want to explain Musk's role, please do so but it doesn't seem likely that he influenced the overwhelming Democratic no vote.
ETA: Possibly we're talking past each other, about two different votes?
OK, first, there was a bipartisan agreement between House Republicans and Democrats. This took several weeks and a bunch of horse trading between the parties to hammer out an agreement that 218 congresspeople would agree to."House rejects Speaker Johnson's revised funding bill as government barrels toward a shutdown" see post #36
If you want to explain Musk's role, please do so but it doesn't seem likely that he influenced the overwhelming Democratic no vote.
ETA: Possibly we're talking past each other, about two different votes?
Doesn't it depend on who gets the job?The thing to remember is that the GOP has a majority in the house, but not a working majority. The dozen or so most extreme Republican members and the dozen or so Republicans reps from districts Biden won, have different ideas about how to do things, and with only a three vote margin to get something passed, Johnson frequently has to go to the Democrats for votes. This math will not change if Johnson is replaced.
Yeah but remember the process for selecting a new Speaker of the House. They need a majority of all House members. With the Democratic minority voting for Jeffries, the GOP speaker would need near unanimous acceptance from the GOP side. By default, the job goes the least hated person in the majority party who actually wants the job.Doesn't it depend on who gets the job?
If they choose someone (no, I don't know who) whose personality/behaviour pisses off enough Republicans, it could make things worse for them.
Nope. It goes to a majority of votes in the House for a named candidate. In practice, this has (almost) always been the presiding party's candidate as they have the majority of votes. But if at least 50% +1 vote for another candidate then there's your new speaker. Further, only present members may vote. So if some of the GOP members are not present, it is conceivable that the minority Dem leader may be elected.Yeah but remember the process for selecting a new Speaker of the House. They need a majority of all House members. With the Democratic minority voting for Jeffries, the GOP speaker would need near unanimous acceptance from the GOP side. By default, the job goes the least hated person in the majority party who actually wants the job.
Nope. It goes to a majority of votes in the House for a named candidate. In practice, this has (almost) always been the presiding party's candidate as they have the majority of votes. But if at least 50% +1 vote for another candidate then there's your new speaker. Further, only present members may vote. So if some of the GOP members are not present, it is conceivable that the minority Dem leader may be elected.
Okay, so that was what happened to this bill....Elon Musk sent out a string of tweets denouncing the agreement and saying that people should vote against it because it was filled with porkbarrel waste, like child cancer research. He encouraged his followers to call their reps, there was much yelling and shouting, some people changed their votes, and the bipartisan deal collapsed.
Not seeing a bill which got zero Dem votes. Are you sure you're not thinking of this bill?Then they tied to pass a budget in the House using only GOP votes, with a pared down bill. Trump helped out by demanding that a debt ceiling raise be put in there as well (as he doesn't want to have to deal with that as President) and demanding that Republicans vote for it. This was the revised bill that got zero Democratic votes (unsurprisingly) and quite a few no votes from Republicans (which does not bode well for the next few years if you like orderly government).
Okay, that was this bill.They then realized that an all-GOP bill isn't going to happen, and cobbled together a bipartisan stopgap bill with Republicans and Democrats voting to keep the government open until March.
I assume he will be, but maybe he'll cobble together a working coalition despite being hobbled by wealthy influencers.The thing to remember is that the GOP has a majority in the house, but not a working majority. The dozen or so most extreme Republican members and the dozen or so Republicans reps from districts Biden won, have different ideas about how to do things, and with only a three vote margin to get something passed, Johnson frequently has to go to the Democrats for votes. This math will not change if Johnson is replaced.
Imagine being so sloppy with facts that you cannot see the difference.Jesus Christ, imagine being so needy for a "wull ackshually" comment that you're splitting hairs between 0 and ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ 2.
I can see the difference just fine but it doesn't change anything about the point of the post. The fact remains the Dems weren't voting for it. Two out of 200+ is functionally none. What difference does your correction make? None, the point is still the same.Imagine being so sloppy with facts that you cannot see the difference.
Sorry about not recognizing those two votes. I was thinking of "effectively zero support" or "two votes" and they got twisted in my head.Imagine being so sloppy with facts that you cannot see the difference.
With a razor-thin majority in the House, possibly all the difference when it comes to passing bills going forward.What difference does your correction make?
I'm here for all of this, especially the empowerment of the centrists.This is what it is going to be like for the next two years. With a razor thin majority in the House, the GOP will be forced to choose between its extremist faction and its moderate faction plus Democrats over and over again. Since the numbers are not there to get even basic housekeeping votes done by choosing the extremists, the Speaker (whoever that may be) will be forced to choose the moderate Republicans and Democrats over and over again, leading to extremists trying to unseat the Speaker.
Absolutely. I'm betting it is extremely unlikely. But then again, ask Kev McCarthy about being the first Speaker to be sacked, by his own party what's more.Which, with this circus in the House, could be the first time that happens.
This doesn't make any sense at all, given the original terms of the prediction contract.I suppose you have to read the small print on those poly market bets. The question is will there be a government shutdown. There was not, but “Yes” won because it required that something be signed by Biden by a certain time and not on whether there was a government shutdown at all.
Shades of selling scrap metal and airplane parts to Japan up until a few months before Pearl Harbor.The original spending bill that President-elect Musk torpedoed contained a provision to limit and screen US investments in China. President-elect Musk owns a major manufacturing plant in Shanghai and has connections in the Chinese Communist Party...
https://thehill.com/business/5051709-musk-delauro-spending-bill-china/