Who believes that or is advocating for it. You just created an entire strawman, my only argument is that wealth does not make you evil or means you can't be a good lawmaker and legislator.
He was in Congress since 1991 with a six figure salary for 30 years. Yes, a couple mill is reasonable from that salary from that many years
You keep on saying "bad faith" yet how is it bad faith to point out counter examples? It's only bad faith if I actually agree with you that politicians should be limited in the wealth they earn. I don't agree with you and am pointing out the problems with that argument. In the instance above I don't believe there is "reasonable threshold". You claimed reasonable is what "a high salaried" can make and then said "100 mil" is too much. I pointed out there are many who make $100 mil and even more from salary. To tie this back to a related discussion it seems to me you're advocating the same problem that William McAskill has with Effective Altruism. You're saying that we should limit political leaders to some level of wealth and then expect them to continue to perform at a high level for the good of the people. That's nice in principle just doesn't seem to work in practice otherwise we wouldn't be discussing SBF.
That doesn't fix this. Jeffries has more votes than McCarthy right now. If every Republican voting against McCarthy votes present, he still loses. This solution forces the Republicans opposing him to make a choice. Either they keep opposing him and elect Jeffries or they hold their nose and vote for McCarthy. McCarthy needs more people to vote for him right now so he can overtake Jeffries. The fastest path to doing that is to force a switch to plurality voting. And if McCarthy isn't the one to do this, then Scalise or someone else needs to force plurality voting. It's the only way to neuter the power of the crazies.
Objectivism certainly has problems. The idea that humans want to make great achievements out of ego and greed though isn't. If you look at human history most achievement has been driven by ego and / or greed. Even the Jonas Salk example while he didn't profit off of the polio He still started an institute that carries his name and he had one of the great architects design an iconic building for it.
Perhaps I'm missing something but my understanding is that voting "Present" counts as null vote. You might as well not voted. Why a plurality hasn't won is that not enough Republicans are voting Present but if just five did and Jefferies had the same amount of votes as previous he would win. Underwhat you're outlining is that if McCarthy switched to a plurality Jefferies woudl still win since he has gotten more votes than McCarthy. I don't see how that is any different.
To be more precise I said that we shouldn't limit lawmakers to legally and ethically make as much money as possible. Money can be a big motivation and if that leads to smarter lawmakers and ones who are willing to work harder then I'm fine with that.
So he lost again. What new concessions will he make now. I wish the other cowards would just come out and say it, "Kevin, we are not going to vote for you despite what concessions you make" and let the process move on.
Given how long she served in Congress and her salary should would have to be terrible with money not to “amassed 9 figures of wealth”.
The issue is that more than 5 Republicans are voting against McCarthy so he is now well under Jeffries' vote total. So present votes aren't enough. He needs most anti-McCarthy Republicans to vote for McCarthy, not vote present. The thing about present votes only works if McCarthy is the top vote getter but he's still well under Jeffries. The only way he's going to get the anti-McCarthy vote to start voting McCarthy is to force the switch to plurality voting. Right now, the anti-McCarthy votes can vote for anyone not named McCarthy or Jeffries and extend this indefinitely. Once plurality voting is implemented, voting against McCarthy means that Jeffries wins. The anti-McCarthy Rs lose the freedom to vote against McCarthy since it'll just elect Jeffries. Basically plurality voting becomes a brinksmanship scenario, not unlike the government shutdown/default scenarios that the freedom caucus loves. He basically forces them into a choice. Either vote McCarthy or get a Democratic speaker. A small handful can vote present as long as McCarthy is ahead of Jeffries but this change speeds this up.
WTF, so he loses again, no one is changing their mind right now, close it down for the day, this is a joke. Is there precedent on what happens if were still here next week in the same boat? Iv`e never heard of anything this outrageous in one`s own party.......much props to Nancy P for keeping the majority of dems in line when it was time to come together, I never realized this was a "thing", I just assumed the party would be happy to have the majority there would be a consensus to move forward even if you weren't thrilled about the speaker. This would have been a great episode on West Wing or Designated Survivor (binged watched first season this weekend and it was dam good)
Sorry came out wrong. What part of her position contributed to her and her husband’s 100 million dollar wealth?
There should b a limit to how many times u fail to garner enough votes to b speaker. I'm not confident thar Mccarthy is the right person for the job if it took him 10 plus ballots. That's like going to a doctor who took 10 tries to pass his boards.
