Falsehoods Unchallenged Only Fester and Grow
https://thefogbow.com/forum/
So, really, the question is more: Will it go MAGA/Club For Growth/Tea Party Republican or Koch Network/Chamber of Commerce Republican?
House Republicans to move forward on formalizing Biden impeachment inquiry next week
Speaker Mike Johnson said he believes Republicans will have the votes they need.
ByKatherine Faulders, Lauren Peller, John Parkinson, Jay O'Brien, and Arthur Jones II
December 7, 2023, 7:05 PM
The House Rules Committee announced Thursday it will consider a resolution next week to formalize Republicans' ongoing impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, and the White House called the move a "baseless stunt."
The panel will mark up a resolution on Tuesday, Dec. 12 to direct the House Oversight, Judiciary and Ways and Means committees to continue their work investigating Biden.
As the House prepares to take action next week, lawmakers are digging into partisan trenches -- setting up a party-line vote.
Even moderate GOP impeachment skeptics who represent districts that Biden won in 2020 are coming around in support of the resolution. House Speaker Mike Johnson previously told reporters he believed Republicans would have the necessary support for the resolution to pass.
"It is the legislative branch's responsibility to assert our responsibility," said New York Rep. Marc Molinaro. "Without question there are issues of impropriety, and they have to be confronted."
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/house-r ... =105454753
Best case scenario is that, for a short period, the D's would only need 3 crossovers to pass something.p0rtia wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2023 6:33 pmBBC is (of course) correct. As are you! Start with 221 (post Santos) Rs and 213 Ds (which is a combined 434 filled seats and one vacancy [Santos]). If 3 Rs decide to vote with the Ds, that makes 216 votes for the D side, and 218 votes for the R side, so the Rs still have control. So the Rs can "afford" to lose those 3 votes. But no more! Because if 4 Rs vote with the 213 Ds, that makes 217 votes for the D side, and leaves 217 for the R side. (221 minus 4). A tie. No control for the Rs. So 221 to 213 is a "3 vote margin".raison de arizona wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2023 1:28 pmMath is hard. I don't know how it works and I'm getting the same numbers you are, but reporting all over is saying they now have a three vote majority, minus McCathry, minus Bill Johnson would be one, no? But the math doesn't work for that so I dunno how they are figuring.p0rtia wrote: ↑Wed Dec 06, 2023 1:07 pm
Pretty sure those aren't the numbers.
Max is 435
Dems are (hopefully) solid at 213
Reps recently filled a vacancy, and were a 222.
With Santos (gone), McCarthy (Jan), and Bill Johnson ("soon") that brings them down to 219, for a couple of months.
So they can afford to lose two votes (217 to 215). Three votes presents the possibility of a tie (216 to 216).
Example, BBC:https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67594903With Mr Santos out, there are now 221 Republicans and 213 Democrats in the chamber. On any party-line vote, Republicans can only afford to lose three on their own side.
Halp!
If there are only 219 Republicans (post Santos, McCarthy, and Johnson), and those same three Rs decide to vote with the Dems, The Rs are down to 216 and the Ds go up to 216. A tie. No control for the Rs. So, the R's can only "afford" to lose 2 votes to the Ds, which would make it 217 to 215. A "2 vote margin."
I have not seen an explanation of the "1 vote margin" various mediaites and politicians have mentioned.
Brilliant idea! I'm all in!northland10 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 2:28 pm Nothing in this will include 1. I may be looking at something wrong, but you can't even get a tie with one crossover on a best-case scenario. You can't tie on 217.5 unless you cut a Congresscritter in half.
Are you getting beheadings back?raison de arizona wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 2:32 pmBrilliant idea! I'm all in!northland10 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 2:28 pm Nothing in this will include 1. I may be looking at something wrong, but you can't even get a tie with one crossover on a best-case scenario. You can't tie on 217.5 unless you cut a Congresscritter in half.
Jim Jordan smacked down by DOJ official after blaming Trump-era investigation on Biden
David Edwards
December 5, 2023 12:18PM ET
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) curbed a line of questioning on Tuesday after a Department of Justice official informed him that an investigation into Elon Musk's SpaceX was opened during former President Donald Trump's administration.
During a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday, Jordan asked Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke about a civil rights investigation into SpaceX. The DOJ's lawsuit accused the company of refusing to hire asylum recipients and refugees.
"Did Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter have anything to do with the Justice Department's decision to file that lawsuit against SpaceX?" Jordan demanded to know.
But Clarke reminded Jordan that the investigation was started under Trump's administration.
"The investigation into SpaceX was open during the last administration, and we filed an administrative action under the Immigration and Nationality Act, an important law passed by this body with bipartisan support and signed into law by President Reagan," she explained.
"What are you alleging that SpaceX did wrong?" Jordan asked, ignoring Clarke's answer.
https://www.rawstory.com/jim-jordan-spacex/
https://www.theintelligencer.net/news/t ... niversity/Johnson plans to resign from Congress in February or early March with the YSU presidency starting March 15.
Why?Is this one of those Sarah Palin inspired "kids should have WHOLE milk, none of of that healthy 2% BS"? Remember how offended Palin was when Michelle Obama wasn't trying to take any unhealthy options off the table, just add healthy options? So offended that she had to take junk food to the local elementary school? I think this is supposed to be an anti-2% milk thingy or something along those lines. Maybe not, but that was my first impression. You know Republicans, they can't just be FOR something, it has to be a rant against something. She's putting way too much stress on the word "whole" for this to be anything but ranting against the healthier milk choice in schools.
Yes, it’s short for homogenized (and it’s sold in bags)Sam the Centipede wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2023 6:08 am
I mean why homo milk, not why don't tell them. Homogenized?
There's something terribly wrong about that. It's the bag.jemcanada2 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2023 9:50 pmYes, it’s short for homogenized (and it’s sold in bags)Sam the Centipede wrote: ↑Thu Dec 14, 2023 6:08 am
I mean why homo milk, not why don't tell them. Homogenized?
Forgive me if I'm misrememering, but wasn't one of the big arguments that the R's used to overturn Roe the idea that such questions should be left to the state legislatures?
Yeah, turns out they were full of shite.noblepa wrote: ↑Fri Dec 15, 2023 11:39 am Forgive me if I'm misrememering, but wasn't one of the big arguments that the R's used to overturn Roe the idea that such questions should be left to the state legislatures?
So, here they come with a proposed FEDERAL law, that, because of the Supremacy clause, would override any state laws to the contrary?