So you want progressive Democrats to also engage in the destruction of the country, and we'd be better for it?
He would have no other choice once defaulted will happen without him ignoring Congress's inaction to raise the debt. Don't be so sure that the SC would not fk it all up. It hasn't been challenged for a reason (not clear cut) - and this Court can and do ignore whatever it wants when there are some seemingly reasonable arguments for it, however unreasonable it is.
This is fine and all in theory - but in practice, markets need stability. The debt-ceiling debacle in 2010 or 2011 cost the US over 1% in GDP. If you just ignored the debt ceiling and printed money and then left it to wind through the court system, you would do incredible damage to the US economy. Stock markets would tank, debt markets would freeze (you're basically saying $25 trillion of debt is now in limbo), counterparty risk to all that debt would skyocket, etc. You'd have a global depression, even if the USSC ultimately OKs the move.
If I thought the progressive demands/agenda were "destructive of the country" do you think I'd be supporting them? Didn't think I'd need to clarify this, especially to someone as smart as you. Edit: and it should also go without saying that making the potential speaker sweat during their election process is also not 'destructive to the country'... despite what the duopoly brained pearl clutchers say.
Well, the far right don't think their demands/agenda are destructive either, do they? The fact is, it's the two party voting system that is enabling the wings of both parties. And those outliers thinking that the system should bend to their will. A group of 20 crazies just changed the rules of congress and won seats on the rules committee, and you think that's great.
Yeah, and? Correct, to an extent. One party's far wing is very empowered. The other one, not so much. Systemic duopoly politics does create a lack of competition and representation problem either way. It just so happens that in this timeline of Black MIrror the far-right has found more purchase in Congress as opposed to the far-left, but that's completely circumstantial and the shoe could probably just as easily be on the other foot. Sometimes those outliers have good (or even critically necessary) ideas. Sometimes not. That's a case by case basis. Find me where I think this is "great". I think by and large those 20 people's ideas are terrible. I also think it sucks total butt that we live in a democracy whose rules are such that it has created this situation where the only way to get anything done is to have an intolerant minority dig its heels in. Again, we would not have this deal-making and consensus-finding problem if we had better laws for electing our leaders. This whole thing is a nightmare, not 'great'.
Whehter McCarthy won on the first vote a lot of the concessions were already made. The things like going after Medicare or defaulting on the debt ceiling were already on the table once the Republicans won the House. All of this did was to highlight the dysfunction within the Republican Caucus.
That's you on your far left sandbox unable to see how empowered your wing really is. It's a perception problem for you. Congress has passed the most progressive agenda ever the last few years. We've gone further to the left on many social issues than ever before. You only see the failure to secure even bigger victories. Who gets to judge what are good or critically necessary ideas? You? What did they get done, other than securing more power for themselves?
If you think the American left is empowered, I invite you to take a look at the left-wing of literally every other industrialized nation on Earth for reference. Uh, yeah, everybody has agency to make their own determinations. I guess we'll find out in the wash. If they went through this whole song and dance and literally got nothing then avenues for affecting change are even fewer than we realize (whether those avenues are used for good/bad things is up to interpretation).
The Republican party is a disaster for America. To the degree that their dysfunction interferes with the party obtaining its objectives it is good for all of us. I can't believe I have to explain this.
If your goalpost is that the US should be Canada or Western Europe, you're always going to be disappointed. That's not "literally every other industrialized nation" by the way. But we (and them) are all moving progressively left compared to 50 or 20 or even 10 years ago. That's my point. What DonnyMost wants to have happen doesn't become law unless a majority of the country also thinks that should be the law. That's how majority rule works, in theory. What do you think this group of 20 folks (less than 5% of Congress representing the extreme views of probably even fewer people) should have been able to accomplish by forcing 15 votes to pick a speaker?
Unless you were gullible enough to think this stalemate would go on for 2 whole years, I'm not sure how this "dysfunction" will interfere with their obtaining their objectives IMO. It may end up recalibrating their objectives to things far more destructive, which is why I never found it to be something to celebrate.
So you think it would be better if the House Republicans were perfectly aligned and elected McCarthy on the first vote? And that they vote in unison for the next two years? This is just getting silly now.
