General Politics Discussion (III) [ARCHIVED] • Page 312

yeah but....is there a way to do that without grins and songs?

 

Well, I'd sure fucking do it differently. Haha. But I'm me.

 

Have you ever watched WWF/E? There is no better way to project anger, confidence, and "I'm about to kick your ass" then smiling and nodding to show everyone how sure of yourself you are. Duh.

 

I'd start singing "fuck you" by cee lo green...but this is why I'd be censured if I ever ran for federal government office lol

 

at the very fucking least pick a decent damn song

 

GOPDEATHCARE

yeah, you're right

 

Looked up some stuff, cause I was curious:

C. Conduct During Debate:

• Words Taken Down: A Member should avoid impugning the motives of another Member, the Senate, the Vice President or the President, using offensive language, or uttering words that are otherwise deemed unparliamentary. These actions are strictly against the standing Rules of the House and are subject to a point of order. This is made by a Member "demanding that the gentleman's (or gentlewoman's) words be taken down." If this happens in the Committee of the Whole, the Committee of the Whole rises and the Speaker must return to the Chair and rule on the propriety of the words used. In the case of remarks regarding the Senate and the President, the Chair may take the initiative and admonish Members for unparliamentary references.
• Often the offending Member obtains unanimous consent to withdraw the inappropriate words or the demand is withdrawn before the Speaker rules and then the Member proceeds in order. However, if the Member's words are ruled out of order, they may be stricken from the Congressional Record by motion or unanimous consent, and the Member will not be allowed to speak again on that day except by motion or unanimous consent (clause 4 of Rule XVII).
• Relevancy: A Member may get carried away in debate and stray from the s under discussion. If so, he or she may be subject to a point of order that their remarks are not relevant to the debate (clause 1(b) of Rule XVII).
• Speaking Out of Order: If a Member has something to say which is not relevant to the debate and just cannot wait until later, he or she may ask unanimous consent to "speak out of order" for a period of time (usually one or two minutes). If granted, the Member may then speak on the desired subject for the allotted time. This is usually done for important announcements to the House.
• Addressing the Chair: A Member must be standing while speaking. If not, the Member may be subject to a point of order because of unparliamentary posture (clause 1(a) of Rule XVII).
• Walking in the Well: Members should avoid walking between the Chair and any Member who is addressing the House. In addition, Members should not walk through the Well of the House when Members are speaking (clause 5 of Rule XVII).
• Dress Code: Members should dress appropriately which has traditionally been considered to include a coat and tie for male Members and appropriate attire for \ female Members. Members should not wear overcoats or hats on the Floor while the House is in session. There is no eating, drinking, or smoking is permitted. The use of personal electronic equipment, including cellular telephones and laptop computers, is banned on the Floor of the House (clause 5 of Rule XVII).
• Forms of Address: Members should not address their colleagues by name on the House Floor. They are “the Gentleman from California,” or “the Gentleman from California, Mr. Jones" or “the Gentlewoman from Florida,” or “the Gentlewoman from Florida, Mrs. Smith."

Hahahahahahaahaha, i would break every single one of these on day one.

 

The Millions of dead Americans ACt might be too long

8,000 9/11's might be too much math

Americans Deserve To Die might work I don't even k ow

 

"I ask for unanimous consent to speak out of order"
"The gentleman from Delaware requests consent to speak out of order...granted...the gentleman from Delaware has the floor."
"Thank you. Fuck you, Paul. I yield the rest of my time."

 

We already knew they're dorks

 

this but in congress

 

"I demand that Gentleman Tate's Words Be Taken Down."
"Yeah, cool, here's some words: 'suck my balls you pusillanimous wad', do I need to spell that for you?"

 

You realize you're basically just describing Parliament

 

Good band.

 

THATS WHAT I WANT DAMN IT

 

Seriously the videos that come out of Parliament of people getting #sickburned and everyone cheering at them would work so well for political theater here

 

ive been saying we need to be making jacobin-style political clubs but yall aren't into it

 

"Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California, Mr. Issa, is fucked."

 

From a pure politics standpoint, the absolute best outcome for Dems would be this passing the house and then stalling in the senate....gets the House votes on the record, but never actually accomplishes everything. But I just wanted it to fail in the House period. Ugh.

Would be pretty funny if the senate cchanges it drastically, sends it back to the house, and then it fails in the house because it's too moderate again.

 

Bring back the caning of Charles Sumner

 

I think, maybe, someone should have told Ezra not to call Paul Ryan the wonkiest wonk in wonkington:

 

Well, if optics or "tone deaf" are actually "why" the dems lose, they're probably never gonna win (but that's a different convo) ... however the Dem's argument here is that the "optics" of this vote are bad for Republicans ... so this would be them specifically caring about optics (and I'd argue what all the Dems are doing on social media, media itself right now, are far more the optics being seen than this one thing Adam wants to pick out).