Steve McCarthy drops out of House Speaker running

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
He chose to step down because he was only going to get 220 votes instead of his target of 240.

Btw, 220 votes still makes him speaker.

He's foolish and weak.

Ok, so purely on his stated reason for dropping out, got it.

Note that in likelyhood, he'd need some Dems to get to that level. Think about what having to rely on Democrats would mean for a Republican speaker in this current Republican party climate, and how people would use that against him.

So sure, he'd get in, but with strong opposition. Basically, he'd enter exactly where Boehner is now, which is not a fun spot- you yourself have complained about him a lot, and a large part of that is due to Boehner's position. Indeed, the shakey support would make it hard for him to be any stronger a speaker, since he'd be too close to the edge of being replaced, like Boehner.

Not wanting that doesn't strike me as foolish. Unambitious sure, but that's not the same as foolish or weak.

Originally posted by Q99
Ok, so purely on his stated reason for dropping out, got it.

Note that in likelyhood, he'd need some Dems to get to that level. Think about what having to rely on Democrats would mean for a Republican speaker in this current Republican party climate, and how people would use that against him.

So sure, he'd get in, but with strong opposition. Basically, he'd enter exactly where Boehner is now, which is not a fun spot- you yourself have complained about him a lot, and a large part of that is due to Boehner's position. Indeed, the shakey support would make it hard for him to be any stronger a speaker, since he'd be too close to the edge of being replaced, like Boehner.

Not wanting that doesn't strike me as foolish. Unambitious sure, but that's not the same as foolish or weak.

He would need less suport from dems if he got in at 220 and more if he got in at 240, so what you say makes zero sense in the light of things.

Boehner was a shill and an empty suit. Now that Paul Ryan is in the running, I am happy Kevin stepped down, Kevin would be another empty suit.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
He would need less suport from dems if he got in at 220 and more if he got in at 240, so what you say makes zero sense in the light of things.

You do know there's 248 Republicans total, right?

The point is he may not get to the 218 minimum without Democrats, because enough Republicans are split.

If he could get to 240 without Democrats, he'd be happy and stay in the running.

If he could get 220 Repuplicans, that means he could do so sans Democrats, but would only barely be so and would be on the very vulnerable to being displaced.

Boehner was a shill and an empty suit. Now that Paul Ryan is in the running, I am happy Kevin stepped down, Kevin would be another empty suit.

Paul Ryan's saying similar things to McCarthy. He doesn't want in.

“I asked him a while back if he would consider being the speaker,” said Representative Trey Gowdy, Republican of South Carolina, who calls Mr. Ryan his favorite member of Congress. “He put his hands on my shoulders and said, ‘I love you guys, but not enough to be your speaker.’ ”
Source

. @RepPaulRyan (paraphrased) "I'm grateful for the support I've received in the last 4 seconds, but I'm STILL out."— Blake Farenthold (@farenthold) October 8, 2015
source

Someone will be speaker, and the right person will be appointed. I know you can't wait for another Obama yes man to show his face again like Boner.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Someone will be speaker, and the right person will be appointed. I know you can't wait for another Obama yes man to show his face again like Boner.

Hey Time, remember that thread the other day where I showed you that Boehner's time as speaker has been the most obstructionisting, least-yes-saying on record, by a wide margin? That half as many laws happened under him each year than even prior low years?

This definition of 'yes man' as 'someone who's willing to let anything pass, at all,' is pretty silly... and, to the point, I don't think you're going to find one who's actually interested in shutting down everything and would get enough support from Republicans, because too many have interest in the government continuing to function.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
That's not his problem. He's a foolish. And weak.

Originally posted by Bardock42
He did always strike me as a foolish and a weak.

Seriously, you won't be happy with anyone who doesn't completely ruin your country. If they in any way compromise with Democrats they are stupid, weak, foolish, traitors, etc.

Seriously, for someone who claims not to be a Republican, TI is pretty vociferous about people he perceives as "not Republican enough"

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I read this with a Mario accent.

😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Quote me saying this, or retract your claim, liar.

I will not retract it. For one I never said this was a direct quote, it's a summary of your stance based on 1) your opposition to the most obstructionist speaker of the house in modern times (Boehner) for being too weak and not obstructionist enough and 2) your support for government shutdowns over political disagreement (like the Affordable Care Act).

If either 1 or 2 are not an accurate representation of your point please tell me so, and clarify your stance...

I do find it kinda interesting how reluctant Time is to explain his reasonings.

McCarthy decides he doesn't want the job, and is called foolish and weak. Paul Ryan says the same thing, and... he isn't?

I'm curious, shouldn't Ryan and McCarthy get similar labels, for doing the same thing (decline running for speakership) for similar reasons (being more happy with their current position, not wanting that difficult job)?

---
Also, I must post a retraction: I totally brainfarted on McCarthy's name when writing the thread title. It is, of course, Kevin McCarthy. I'd also like to thank you all for not noticing my error until I had a chance to ^^

in all likelihood, someone on foxnews called him "foolish" and "weak", and TI just ran with it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I will not retract it. For one I never said this was a direct quote, it's a summary of your stance based on 1) your opposition to the most obstructionist speaker of the house in modern times (Boehner) for being too weak and not obstructionist enough and 2) your support for government shutdowns over political disagreement (like the Affordable Care Act).

If either 1 or 2 are not an accurate representation of your point please tell me so, and clarify your stance...

Quite me saying it or retract your claim, large liar.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Quite me saying it or retract your claim, large liar.

So, are

1) You oppose the most obstructionist speaker of the house in modern times (Boehner) for being too weak and not obstructionist enough

and

2) You support government shutdowns over political disagreement (like the Affordable Care Act)

correct summaries of your position or do you believe something different?

Quite me saying it retract your claim, liar.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Quite me saying it retract your claim, liar.

Jesus, the more you repeat it the more the sentence devolves into gibberish.

Again, why would I have to quote you saying something when I never said you said the thing you want me to quote?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Again, why would I have to quote you saying something when I never said you said the thing you want me to quote?

*quite

Originally posted by Bardock42
Jesus, the more you repeat it the more the sentence devolves into gibberish.

Again, why would I have to quote you saying something when I never said you said the thing you want me to quote?

Nice to see you dodge your way out of making a claim I never said.

Moving on, liar.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Nice to see you dodge your way out of making a claim I never said.

Moving on, liar.

Yeah, lets move on. So, I think you and the Tea Party people definitely want an even more obstructionist leader than Boehner already wars. I definitely think that would be pretty devastating both to the Republican party and the US as a whole.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, lets move on. So, I think you and the Tea Party people definitely want an even more obstructionist leader than Boehner already wars. I definitely think that would be pretty devastating both to the Republican party and the US as a whole.

More lies, which you cannot back up. Nor do you have proof of your claims. You clearly cannot understand simple things.

Do you want a speaker that works together more with Democrats or less than Boehner did?

Yes, now what, you liar.