Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

The New Coffee Room

  1. TNCR
  2. General Discussion
  3. Speaker McCarthy

Speaker McCarthy

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General Discussion
33 Posts 10 Posters 144 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • CopperC Copper

    @Horace said in Speaker McCarthy:

    risk their very lives

    If they remove the fire extinguishers it should be safe.

    HoraceH Offline
    HoraceH Offline
    Horace
    wrote on last edited by
    #24

    @Copper said in Speaker McCarthy:

    @Horace said in Speaker McCarthy:

    risk their very lives

    If they remove the fire extinguishers it should be safe.

    The ultimate irony of Trumpism. Forcing us to remove safety devices, to ensure safety.

    Education is extremely important.

    1 Reply Last reply
    • JollyJ Jolly

      BTW, McCarthy said one of the first bills will be to do away with all the new IRS agents. Next will be an energy bill.

      And then, God help him, will be tackling the debt.

      jon-nycJ Offline
      jon-nycJ Offline
      jon-nyc
      wrote on last edited by
      #25

      @Jolly said in Speaker McCarthy:

      BTW, McCarthy said one of the first bills will be to do away with all the new IRS agents. Next will be an energy bill.

      And then, God help him, will be tackling the debt.

      The first two will be performative. Seems like what they’ll be able to do this term is, (1) investigate everything, and (2) force a default, or more likely, finally convince Treasury to mint trillion dollar coins.

      Thank you for your attention to this matter.

      1 Reply Last reply
      • taiwan_girlT Offline
        taiwan_girlT Offline
        taiwan_girl
        wrote on last edited by
        #26

        Sounds a bit like what I have read about some Isreal governments.

        In order to get to a majority, they have to pick sides with one extreme side or the other. So, a very small minority had more power than they should have.

        1 Reply Last reply
        • George KG George K

          "Term limits?"

          Nice idea which I support. But it requires passing constitutional muster. Ain't gonna happen other than a performance vote and they can say "We tried!"

          LuFins DadL Offline
          LuFins DadL Offline
          LuFins Dad
          wrote on last edited by
          #27

          @George-K said in Speaker McCarthy:

          "Term limits?"

          Nice idea which I support. But it requires passing constitutional muster. Ain't gonna happen other than a performance vote and they can say "We tried!"

          Why wouldn’t it pass Constitutional Muster? What separates it from Presidential Term Limits, Constitutionally speaking?

          The Brad

          jon-nycJ George KG 2 Replies Last reply
          • LuFins DadL LuFins Dad

            @George-K said in Speaker McCarthy:

            "Term limits?"

            Nice idea which I support. But it requires passing constitutional muster. Ain't gonna happen other than a performance vote and they can say "We tried!"

            Why wouldn’t it pass Constitutional Muster? What separates it from Presidential Term Limits, Constitutionally speaking?

            jon-nycJ Offline
            jon-nycJ Offline
            jon-nyc
            wrote on last edited by jon-nyc
            #28

            @LuFins-Dad The latter was done through constitutional amendment.

            Generally the thought has always been that qualifications for office are set in the constitution and can’t be changed by legislation- eg states can’t say “you can’t get on presidential ballot if…” (and they’ve tried)

            Of course the house could pass a proposed Amendment - with a 2/3 vote of both houses.

            Thank you for your attention to this matter.

            JollyJ 1 Reply Last reply
            • LuFins DadL LuFins Dad

              @George-K said in Speaker McCarthy:

              "Term limits?"

              Nice idea which I support. But it requires passing constitutional muster. Ain't gonna happen other than a performance vote and they can say "We tried!"

              Why wouldn’t it pass Constitutional Muster? What separates it from Presidential Term Limits, Constitutionally speaking?

              George KG Offline
              George KG Offline
              George K
              wrote on last edited by
              #29

              @LuFins-Dad said in Speaker McCarthy:

              Why wouldn’t it pass Constitutional Muster? What separates it from Presidential Term Limits, Constitutionally speaking?

              Absolutely nothing.

              I phrased that poorly. What I meant to convey is that it's a really high bar to get a Constitutional amendment passed.

              "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08

              The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.

              1 Reply Last reply
              • jon-nycJ jon-nyc

                @LuFins-Dad The latter was done through constitutional amendment.

                Generally the thought has always been that qualifications for office are set in the constitution and can’t be changed by legislation- eg states can’t say “you can’t get on presidential ballot if…” (and they’ve tried)

                Of course the house could pass a proposed Amendment - with a 2/3 vote of both houses.

                JollyJ Offline
                JollyJ Offline
                Jolly
                wrote on last edited by
                #30

                @jon-nyc said in Speaker McCarthy:

                @LuFins-Dad The latter was done through constitutional amendment.

                Generally the thought has always been that qualifications for office are set in the constitution and can’t be changed by legislation- eg states can’t say “you can’t get on presidential ballot if…” (and they’ve tried)

                Of course the house could pass a proposed Amendment - with a 2/3 vote of both houses.

                Would be interesting if the GOP house brought that one to the floor.

                “Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”

                Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton

                1 Reply Last reply
                • JollyJ Offline
                  JollyJ Offline
                  Jolly
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #31

                  BTW, I'd like to see two terms for Senators, six terms for Congressmen, with the twelve year limit to run concurrently. After six years, you can run for Congress again, same rules apply. However, during that six year period, you may not lobby the government.

                  “Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”

                  Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  • JollyJ Offline
                    JollyJ Offline
                    Jolly
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #32

                    And...I'd like to see a modified version of the Fairness Doctrine brought back, which would compel candidates to give x number of speeches, townhalls and debates on the airwaves.

                    “Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”

                    Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    • CopperC Offline
                      CopperC Offline
                      Copper
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #33

                      6 years is a long time to be a lame duck

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      • George KG George K referenced this topic on
                      Reply
                      • Reply as topic
                      Log in to reply
                      • Oldest to Newest
                      • Newest to Oldest
                      • Most Votes


                      • Login

                      • Don't have an account? Register

                      • Login or register to search.
                      • First post
                        Last post
                      0
                      • Categories
                      • Recent
                      • Tags
                      • Popular
                      • Users
                      • Groups