So here we go again… Please direct all comments and links regarding the actual
VOTING to this thread. Edit NEXT STEPS: Mike Johnson is the current nominee.
https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/house-speaker-vote-live-updates-10-24-2023/
[https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/house-speaker-vote-live-updates-10-24-2023/]
43 of the 44 votes against Johnson went back to Kevin McCarthy and there are
accusations that he, or his supporters, are organizing opposition against these
other nominees.
[email protected] [
[email protected]] dug up
the Cspan link, as of 10:03 AM Pacific, they are still in the nominating
process. https://www.c-span.org/video/?531374-1/house-session&live
[https://www.c-span.org/video/?531374-1/house-session&live] Mike Johnson is
getting key votes who defected to other people in previous votes. He might have
it wrapped up. We’ll know shortly. Currently 176 to 155, Johnson to Jeffries,
with no defections on either side. None of the other votes made it this far
without enough defections to block the nominee. Looking inevitable at this
point. If you’d like to know more about Mike Johnson, here’s a good link:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/25/who-is-mike-johnson-republican-2020-election
[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/25/who-is-mike-johnson-republican-2020-election]
1st vote count is in: Hakeem Jeffries - 212 (217 needed to win)
Jim Jordan - 200
Steve Scalise - 7
Kevin McCarthy - 6
“Others” - 7
Jordan could have only lost 4 votes, he lost 20. 2nd vote: Jeffries - 212
Jordan - 199
Scalise - 7
McCarthy - 5
Zeldin - 3
“Others” - 7 (one each)
Edit 3rd vote is in, House in recess.
Jeffries - 210
Jordan - 194
Scalise - 8
McHenry - 6
Zeldin - 4
Donalds - 2
McCarthy - 2
“Others” - 3 (1 each)
Matt Gaetz has vowed to oppose expanding the powers for McHenry:
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4265284-gaetz-will-do-everything-possible-stop-empowering-mchenry/
[https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4265284-gaetz-will-do-everything-possible-stop-empowering-mchenry/]
The guy described HIMSELF as “David Duke without the baggage.” I’ve never seen a word do as much lifting as the word “baggage” as he used it.
I really want to know, what’s left when you take away the baggage from “David Duke”.
Did he have any redeeming qualities?
No.
It reminds me of that Christopher Hitchens quote. “If you gave Jerry Falwell an enema, you could bury him in a matchbox.”
Goddamn I miss Christopher Hitchens.
Who’s David Duke?
Failed politician and former Grand Wizard of the KKK.
So if you consider the Grand Wizard as the baggage, that leaves us with “failed politician.” If you consider failed politician as the baggage, that leaves the KKK.
So he’s a bright star for maga dumb-dumbs either way.
I consider the baggage to be the fact that people know David Duke was racist. Had they not known about the racism, he would not have baggage.
I think that is what Scalice was saying. He’s like David Duke except not everyone knows how racist he is.
He was the 1970s inspiration for men to wear really tight, closely-cut jean cutoff shorts.
I see ya down here, bud, and I liked the cut of your jib.
David Duke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke - The first sentence: “David Ernest Duke (born July 1, 1950) is an American politician, white supremacist, antisemitic conspiracy theorist, and former grand wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.”
You’re one internet search away from knowing.
Guarantee if you search that with no other context, the first result will be the right one.