• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    I can deny that. Please enlighten me on exactly how the Democrats could have played this differently. They aren’t the ones who changed the requirements to let ONE person decide the speaker wasn’t doing their job. They aren’t the ones who used the rule to oust the speaker, they voted exactly the same in the record number of speaker votes for one term that I sure hope won’t be broken. They aren’t even the ones who said they wouldn’t compromise.

    ETA: McCarthy accepted the rule for one person to be able to oust him AFTER several votes showing the Democrats were voting en bloc, so he knew from the get go that as soon as one of those freedumb turds got upset his job was lost. Was he banking on Democrats support even though he could clearly see there was no way he would make it through the entire term as speaker.

    • @StunningGoggles
      link
      08 months ago

      They could have voted to keep him in, which is what is better for their constituents than this clown. Lol, how is that hard to see?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        08 months ago

        He went back on the deal he made and a whole bunch of egregious shit and I would guess McCarthy also things very similarly, which is exactly why SOOO many Republicans support have even less problems with him than they did McCarthy. Why did it take 15 votes to get McCarthy the job but not this guy? You sound like a victim of domestic violence saying that if you just accept it, everything will be better for you.

        The best thing for all constituents is to put this shit show on highlight reels so people stop voting for the absolute trash of the American population. It’s very obvious to me to see.