What was the plan to make this effective and ensure lower spending in the future?  Who did Gaetz want to take over as Speaker?

Usually when you do these kinds of things you have a clear plan to succeed. 

So Pelosi, the former speaker was in a "speaker of the house" type of 2ndary office. Even though her role ended months ago.  The new temporary speaker of the house gave her a notice to vacate within the first day on the job. IDK what the common practice is for someone who was speaker for years to move back to a normal office.

I think that the boot is sending a message to the GOP that if you're in a role that they vote for, then you need to fullfill enough promises or you will get the boot. That's how it should be, do you job or get fired.

***IDK what role the speaker has in said promises or if the person even has any control over it as I never looked into the matter. But going on face value to assume the speaker does have control is my opinions in this thread.  It would be silly to boot someone who has zero control over the matters. Unless said person didn't even try.

Take the abortion issue for example. The hard core want a complete ban on elective abortions. The moderates want a ban after the first trimester. Don't cooperate and you get no restrictions at all and the end results are more abortions than either side wanted.

An 8% reduction in spending does more to reduce the debt than does anything the democrats would do. Not sure what Russia has to do with this, that gorilla is looming no matter what we do.

Yeah so instead of going 70 mph over the cliff we would’ve gone 50 mph. They’re both shit sandwiches no matter what. McCarthy lied and tried to bully the more conservative wing of the Republican Party by using shutdown politics to force them to vote. Good riddance.

What was the plan to make this effective and ensure lower spending in the future?  Who did Gaetz want to take over as Speaker?

Usually when you do these kinds of things you have a clear plan to succeed.

The plan is to hold people in power to their word. How is allowing a speaker of the house who doesn’t keep to their word ensure a balanced budget, spending cuts, and lower debt? Politics as usual is what got us here in the first place.

Winning elections at this point doesn’t really matter. With republicans like McCarthy who needs democrats?

So Pelosi, the former speaker was in a "speaker of the house" type of 2ndary office. Even though her role ended months ago.  The new temporary speaker of the house gave her a notice to vacate within the first day on the job. IDK what the common practice is for someone who was speaker for years to move back to a normal office.

I think that the boot is sending a message to the GOP that if you're in a role that they vote for, then you need to fullfill enough promises or you will get the boot. That's how it should be, do you job or get fired.

***IDK what role the speaker has in said promises or if the person even has any control over it as I never looked into the matter. But going on face value to assume the speaker does have control is my opinions in this thread.  It would be silly to boot someone who has zero control over the matters. Unless said person didn't even try.

First of all, Senators all get a "hide away" office separate from their normal office so they can take time to to catch up on things or, of course, do those back-door, under-the-table meetings that really get things done in DC.

Only certain high-ranking members of the House are afforded the same hide-away office.  The Speaker is obviously higher-up than the rest, so they not only have a second office, but they get to decide who else has one.

Second, i think the Speaker Pro Tem should have waited until Pelosi was back in DC.  She said she accompanied Senator Feinstein's body to CA and attended the burial services.  As a fellow CA elected official in Congress, I'm sure it was her responsibility to be as involved in the state ceremonies as possible.

Assigning or vacating those special office spaces is 100% up to the Speaker of the House.  Pelosi said she gave her predecessor as Speaker (Dennis Hastert - R) the use of his office for as long as he wanted it.  That was her choice. 

I don't know what tradition is in this situation, but something tells me it's different for each Speaker depending on their needs.  Perhaps this House now has more committees or other positions in need of that space than existed in 2007?

Regardless, I think they could have waited a few days rather than evicting her on the new Speaker's first day.

Anytime something like this happens, it creates a higher likelihood that the next time the Speaker's gavel changes parties, the same treatment will be used on the next ex-Speaker.

This should have never been a news item.  It only hurts the GOP as a whole and the House majority even more.

First of all, Senators all get a "hide away" office separate from their normal office so they can take time to to catch up on things or, of course, do those back-door, under-the-table meetings that really get things done in DC.

Only certain high-ranking members of the House are afforded the same hide-away office.  The Speaker is obviously higher-up than the rest, so they not only have a second office, but they get to decide who else has one.

Second, i think the Speaker Pro Tem should have waited until Pelosi was back in DC.  She said she accompanied Senator Feinstein's body to CA and attended the burial services.  As a fellow CA elected official in Congress, I'm sure it was her responsibility to be as involved in the state ceremonies as possible.

Assigning or vacating those special office spaces is 100% up to the Speaker of the House.  Pelosi said she gave her predecessor as Speaker (Dennis Hastert - R) the use of his office for as long as he wanted it.  That was her choice. 

I don't know what tradition is in this situation, but something tells me it's different for each Speaker depending on their needs.  Perhaps this House now has more committees or other positions in need of that space than existed in 2007?

Regardless, I think they could have waited a few days rather than evicting her on the new Speaker's first day.

Anytime something like this happens, it creates a higher likelihood that the next time the Speaker's gavel changes parties, the same treatment will be used on the next ex-Speaker.

This should have never been a news item.  It only hurts the GOP as a whole and the House majority even more.

Thanks for the info. So the boot does sound political.  But it doesn't bother me as Pelosi tries to take my right away all the time.

Thanks for the info. So the boot does sound political.  But it doesn't bother me as Pelosi tries to take my right away all the time.

Sometimes doing what makes you feel good isn't the best thing for you.

if they really needed the space, they could have had their own staffers box her stuff up and secure it somewhere.  She could have then had her stuff moved out when she returned.  That would have made the whole thing look less like a petty jab and more like a bonafide need for the space.

Just sayin'.

Sometimes doing what makes you feel good isn't the best thing for you.

if they really needed the space, they could have had their own staffers box her stuff up and secure it somewhere.  She could have then had her stuff moved out when she returned.  That would have made the whole thing look less like a petty jab and more like a bonafide need for the space.

Just sayin'.

Pelosi and her lemmings already try to screw me and America, so can't get any worst.

Pelosi and her lemmings already try to screw me and America, so can't get any worst.

Help me out.

How did vacating her from that office change anything Pelosi did, or in the future may do, to you and America?

Help me out.

How did vacating her from that office change anything Pelosi did, or in the future may do, to you and America?

It showed that we have someone in charge who isn't afraid to give someone the boot to make a statement. Even if it's only temporary.

It showed that we have someone in charge who isn't afraid to give someone the boot to make a statement. Even if it's only temporary.

Once again, how does "making a statement" change what's she's already done?

What's the statement?  Do what we think you should, or we'll take your office -- which 95% of House members don't even have?

Once again, how does "making a statement" change what's she's already done?

What's the statement?  Do what we think you should, or we'll take your office -- which 95% of House members don't even have?

You cannot change what someone has already done, unless you own a time machine. But then, if you did go back in time to change said action, then why would 1 have to go back in time if said action didn't occur?  So was the time travel successful?  Or is there an alternate timeline created that you retain the information of what took place, but no one else does since it's been changed.

IMO, the statement is that her job is over so she gets the boot. She is no longer in a powerful position to retain a special office. 

You cannot change what someone has already done, unless you own a time machine. But then, if you did go back in time to change said action, then why would 1 have to go back in time if said action didn't occur?  So was the time travel successful?  Or is there an alternate timeline created that you retain the information of what took place, but no one else does since it's been changed.

IMO, the statement is that her job is over so she gets the boot. She is no longer in a powerful position to retain a special office.

Taking a government-owned office from a mega-millionaire who spent years as the 3rd in line to be president is a weak statement.

Most people aren't that invested in having an office.

Taking a government-owned office from a mega-millionaire who spent years as the 3rd in line to be president is a weak statement.

Most people aren't that invested in having an office.

Can you name another time that a statement was made to Pelosi?  Although small, it's the concept that counts. Like when she ripped up Trumps speech at his SOTU.

What was the plan to make this effective and ensure lower spending in the future?  Who did Gaetz want to take over as Speaker?

Usually when you do these kinds of things you have a clear plan to succeed.

Some people just want to watch the world burn? 

I am quite idealistic but even I know sometimes you have to compromise.

Yeah so instead of going 70 mph over the cliff we would’ve gone 50 mph. They’re both shit sandwiches no matter what. McCarthy lied and tried to bully the more conservative wing of the Republican Party by using shutdown politics to force them to vote. Good riddance.

And where would we be otherwise? Government shut down, angry voters, give ammo to democrats?

It is a physical impossibility to make everyone on one side of the aisle happy on something like this.

And where would we be otherwise? Government shut down, angry voters, give ammo to democrats?

It is a physical impossibility to make everyone on one side of the aisle happy on something like this.

What do you mean where would we be? McCarthy had 9 months to put together single subject bills to fund the parts of the government that mattered. He didn’t want to do that because he’s a corrupt piece if shit and he tried to snake his way into another Omnibus bill to further put us into debt like politics as usual. It’s not like this popped up out of no where, he agreed to it from the start.

Can you name another time that a statement was made to Pelosi?  Although small, it's the concept that counts. Like when she ripped up Trumps speech at his SOTU.

Statement from whom?  There were a few from Trump (cancelling her military air for a boondoggle shortly before she was to depart).

As Speaker, there are going to be conflict situations, like with the radical progressives in the "Squad".  In just a few months, they stopped sniping at Pelosi and learned to shut up and color.

Saying someone is "making a statement" would mean more of we didn't have to be told they are making a statement.

I am quite idealistic but even I know sometimes you have to compromise.

We’re comprised enough already

What do you mean where would we be? McCarthy had 9 months to put together single subject bills to fund the parts of the government that mattered. He didn’t want to do that because he’s a corrupt piece if shit and he tried to snake his way into another Omnibus bill to further put us into debt like politics as usual. It’s not like this popped up out of no where, he agreed to it from the start.

And what would have happened if that bill cut too much spending for the more moderate republicans and they voted no? Republicans only have a slim majority, it only takes a few republicans to block a bill. What do you think should have been different about the spending bill which would have made everyone happy?