Tonight’s vote for Speaker [scroll down for UPDATES]
I thought I’d put up a separate post for this, in case this one really ends up electing McCarthy. I make no predictions about that.
They’ve released a rules package. Here it is, all 55 pages of it. I haven’t read it, but I skimmed it very quickly and noticed that on page 50 through 55 you’ll find some of what looks like their contemplated legislative agenda.
UPDATE 11:58 PM:
McCarthy came up one vote short. But as I was starting to research the situation for my update, I noticed (if this breaking story is correct) that there will be another vote later tonight.
The brouhaha seems to involve Gaetz. Earlier today people were talking as though it was finally sewn up for McCarthy, so I’m wondering whether Gaetz made some sort of dramatic switcheroo to vote “no” instead of “present” right at the end, the better to humiliate McCarthy and drag out his own day in the sun further. I’ll update again if and when I get some clarity on this.
UPDATE: 1/7/23 12:25 AM
They’ve started voting again. Here’s one very recent take on what may have happened earlier, and what might be about to happen:
When Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala., had to be physically restrained from going after Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., he was frustrated because Gaetz had been holding out for a subcommittee gavel on the Armed Services Committee, according to a person familiar with the situation.
Rogers is poised to chair the full committee. Gaetz voted “present” again on the 15th ballot, which with other present votes could secure the speakership for Kevin McCarthy.
And this had happened earlier to get to the 15th balloting:
During the roll call vote on a motion to adjourn until Monday, it was becoming clear that it was going to fail because several Republicans were opposed.
Then, Gaetz went to the dais and voted against adjourning and then went to McCarthy and they shook hands. Suddenly, McCarthy switched his vote to also oppose the motion that his own ally brought to the floor.
A number of Republicans then began to follow McCarthy’s lead in switching their votes.
I’d love to know what led to that handshake. Perhaps Gaetz realized – or was made to realize – that his behavior wasn’t getting him anywhere further at this point? Was he becoming a pariah even with his former allies?
UPDATE 12:46 AM:
It’s over and McCarthy is the Speaker of the House.
I actually think it was over – although not officially – with the handshake mentioned in my 12:25 AM update.
Also:
The switches [on ballot 15] came after a remarkable confrontation following the 14th vote between McCarthy and Gaetz, who appeared to have decided at the last minute to pull his support from the party leader.
If true, that’s exactly what I surmised had happened (writing in my 11:58 PM UPDATE) – that Gaetz may have pulled a John McCain when, having deferred his vote till the final moment of ballot 14, he broke some sort of assurance he had made earlier to McCarthy or the McCarthy supporters. If that report is true, Gaetz apparently let McCarthy think the vote was in the bag for the 14th ballot, and then pulled the rug out from under McCarthy in the most dramatic and publicly humiliating fashion.
I plan to write more tomorrow about tonight’s drama.
Defeated by one vote. It was a memorable (if somewhat embarrassing) denouement for certain. Mike Rogers being pulled away from Gaetz will make for plenty of comedic fodder.
As I’ve said before, I respect the six dissidents. But at this point, one of the four voting Biggs/Jordan should have switched to ‘present’ and put this to bed
Missed it by “this much.”
Football hits uprights, bounces on crossbar, and…
no good.
Let that sink in…
14th…FOURTEENTH…vote and he’s not across the line.
He will never be respected in DC again.
Who’s EVER going to believe he can get anything accomplished?
Shoot…this might even gum up his post-congressional gig on MSNBC or CNN.
15…15 votes and they’re cheering like he won the Kentucky Derby. He’s damaged goods now. That sort of hubris is not a good look.
15th Vote
Kevin McCarthy elected Speaker of the House, 216 Votes Yes, 6 Voted Present.
He is now the Speaker of the House.
Time to get to work.
Lots to do.
Damaged goods? By whom, pray tell. Time will tell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFPSadowkiM
Prepare for more of the same.
Meanwhile
As Micki Witthoeft, mother of Ashli Babbitt, was put into a United States Capitol Police vehicle in handcuffs, I asked if she had anything to say.
“Yeah, Capitol Police suck ass!” she replied.
Sums up all of DC.
John Guilfoyle:
Maybe yes, maybe no. A lot of people have short memories.
Those who hated and wanted to defy him will continue to do so. They may be more ostracized now by the others in the GOP, and those others might end up feeling more sympathy for and unity with McCarthy as a result of this ordeal, which also may have been an upsetting ordeal for them.
Gaetz did himself no favors by his behavior earlier this evening, which may have been from personal ambition.
Not sure at all who is the winner here, but McCarthy is indeed the Speaker – for now.
om…
If McCarthy can’t count his votes before…BEFORE…they’re cast & he keeps repeating that same error for three days running; he’s damaged his own goods. There was no reason for this rubbish to play out. He’s had ample time to get the sense of what was needed if he wanted that gavel so badly. Grade A hubris on his part.
Boss is correct though…Gaetz comes off looking like a putz too as well as Muscleman Mike Rogers.
McCarthy though is seriously weakened as Speaker if he can’t corral his party room any better than that. And don’t be surprised if a few of those 20 or so remain a thorn in his backside.
John Guilfoyle:
Ever hear of Danegeld? Geatz wanted McCarthy out all together. Gaetz lost. Who damaged the party and the Republicans and the standing of conservatives? Gaetz. He took it to the mat and lost. If you are going to “kill” the king you can’t take 15 stabs.
McCarthy may not have anything to do with Gaetz having a new line of work in 2024. Gaetz’s voters may tire of his antics by then.
John Guilfoyle:
So far, what I have read indicated that at least for the 14th ballot, Gaetz told him or his supporters one thing and then did another. So if that’s the case, it wasn’t McCarthy who couldn’t count straight, at least that time.
I think he could count the earlier times, too. I think he probably thought some of them might blink, or that others would tire of the waste of time because they were gaining little to nothing from it.
Boss…no argument on Gaetz. He overplayed and lost. The onus is now on McCarthy. If he can actually get them all to work and play well together it’ll be a good thing. I’m skeptical. Let’s see where we are 12 months from now. I’d love to see some different behaviour from the Rs from now on.
John Guilfoyle:
Indeed.
Jennifer O’Connell has a positive outlook on the election.
https://redstate.com/jenniferoo/2023/01/07/kevin-mccarthys-speaker-of-the-house-battle-has-effectively-wiped-j-6-from-the-annals-of-history-n684576
I think the Democrats will continue to beat the dead J6 horse, but with some actual leadership from McCarthy and the House committee chairs, maybe the Republicans can salvage the truth.
However, IF McCarthy does renege on any of his agreements, or decides to take some kind of vengeance on the 20 “obstructionists” or the 6 hold-outs, then there will be a different kind of history being made in 2024.
@ John Guilfoyle > “I’d love to see some different behaviour from the Rs from now on.”
Isn’t that what the Twenty Obstructionists were after in the first place?
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fd4a82e58a993d1405389870c61a356c865c004f2ad22cd57ae8d3ba5a4a9656.jpg?w=600&h=306
However, I suspect much of the behavior we do get from the Rs will still be Government as Usual.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/21e35584776f2c23a612453272781bc9aec1565f38e92abae79659506274b43c.jpg?w=600&h=508
I hope that the GOP going forward will be like this art restoration – scrubbing away the yellowed varnish on the Constitution and Congress.
https://twitter.com/AcademiaAesthe1/status/1575915707770220544
(Two videos; h/t Not the Bee.)
A couple of posts from PJM that make important points.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/stacey-lennox/2023/01/04/a-significant-majority-of-republican-voters-agree-with-the-gop-rebels-n1658511
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/paula-bolyard/2023/01/07/breaking-kevin-mccarthy-elected-55th-speaker-of-the-house-heres-how-it-went-down-n1659495
Looking at the past few years, and this process, it’s clear that Democrats favor dictatorship and operate their party accordingly. Republicans favor a more democratic process.
Kate,
Exactly. I just saw a comment over at AT by a person, Bob Wilson, which precisely describes how the Ds operate:
“What the dems practice is called “Democratic Centralism.” It’s a term referring to how the communists moved their policy agendas forward in the old soviet union. Every commie got to debate the issues fully…behind closed doors. But once a policy decision was reached, everyone was required to close ranks and advance that position…or else. The Dems do likewise. By their fruits ye shall know them.”
I’d much rather have what we saw over the past few days. As Tucker said, this is what is supposed to happen…messy, argumentative, and eventual resolution. Not the Borg collective of the Ds. I know many commenters here disagree and seem to value the GOP showing a unified front like the Ds, but to me that is just a way for the GOPe/uniparty to retain their control.
Drama is exactly the right word, and we’re not getting drama presented from the dissenters’ side of things. We’re watching through Swamp goggles.
Concessions reportedly include:
A single member can move to “vacate the chair”
A hard line on the debt limit
Votes on term limits and border security
McCarthy’s leadership PAC will stay out of open primaries
“Open rules” on spending measures, and the ability to bring up stand-alone appropriation bills
Discretionary spending cap
A commitment to set up a committee on the “weaponization” of the government.
___________
The fact that these were concessions tells me all I need to know about why I distrust McCarthy.
And the fact that the inmates of the Senate chose McConnell again, despite the overwhelming distaste of Republican voters for him, is further evidence that there is indeed a GOPe to oppose. Does ANYONE defend the way we pass spending bills? Anyone? The “Terrorists” tried to make a small step toward fixing that.
After being accused of sex trafficking a minor for 2 years; I’m not sure why people expected Gaetz to be concerned about his image when he had a chance to return the favor of support to McCarthy. Hopefully some backbone has been created to go after the unethical organizations within the DOJ.
Eeyore nails it.
@Leland:After being accused of sex trafficking a minor for 2 years
I believe some other Republicans have also been accused of such things in the media, and like Gaetz, these things were never shown to be true.
@Eeyore:And the fact that the inmates of the Senate chose McConnell again, despite the overwhelming distaste of Republican voters for him, is further evidence that there is indeed a GOPe to oppose.
For me it was when McConnell worked to “nuke” his own party’s filibuster so that the Dems could increase the debt ceiling without any Republican votes on record as favoring. (Mysteriously unaccompanied by hand-wringing media think pieces on hallowed Senate traditions and protections for minorities.) If that doesn’t convince you there’s GOPe theater, nothing will.
1) Republicans had enough votes to stop the debt ceiling from being raised, using the filibuster.
2) McConnell wanted to be on record as voting against raising the debt ceiling, but did not want to actually stop the debt ceiling from being raised (which his party had the votes to do).
3) He and Schumer together collected enough votes to nuke the filibuster, so the debt ceiling was not filibustered. “We want a simple majority without a convoluted, risky, lengthy process and it looks like Republicans will help facilitate that,” Schumer said in a press conference Tuesday.
4) The Dems raised it, 50 – 49, as McConnell worked to ensure would happen–but of course he took credit for voting no.
When you can stop something from happening, but then work behind the scenes to ensure it happens and then ostentatiously and publicly oppose it when it happens, what ARE we supposed to call that, if not opposition theater? If that isn’t theater, what would be?
physicsguy @8:49am,
I agree absolutely with what you wrote. It’s the people’s house, they represent us. It should all be out in the open. No secrets.
However, we have political parties (I hate them, but they are inevitable). And the election of the Speaker is a political party function. This was the GOP’s chance to show the voters who entrusted them with power two months ago that they are competent and worthy. They have had two months to sort this out. They knew January 3rd was coming and were not prepared, or not talented enough to get the job done. It’s disrespectful to the voters who they represent. Their time is our money.
Mike rogers (why are they always terrible except for the admiral) reminds of the pesci line in casino ‘they didnt forget to steal’
AesopFan @2:12am,
That’s incredible! I think my wife would love doing work like that.
Well, for better or worse, some dumbpublicans showed some backbone and very tough (dishonest? intransigent? ) negotiating techniques.
Maybe the House and Senate republicans can learn from this when dealing with demonkrats.
The dems lie all the time.. They have no compunction, no hesitancy in engaging in all sorts of dishonesty. For them, it’s whatever it takes to win. They always play hardball.
Exhibit 1 is joke bidet (how he came away unscathed when arrested by
the S. African police is just luck, don’t you think?).
#2 is Adam Schiff.
no need to mention the others.
Imagine the media coverage if it was the democrats going thru an election imbroglio to elect a speaker of the house.
“Democracy in action !!”
” Demonstrates the diversity of opinion with the democrat party!”
“This will only produce a more powerful speaker of the house who will be better able advance the party’s agenda!”
The media here in the USA would have been right at home in Stalin’s USSR or Hitler’s Germany. And they would not even have had to be coerced to advance the govt. agenda.
Anyway, time will tell what the dumbpublicans will accomplish.
If they embark on all sorts of hearings to investigate this or that, and the end result is a big fat zero (i.e. nobody goes to jail), it will be business as usual for the dumbpublicans and nothing of significance will change.
Hopefully this time the Republicans have legislation ready to go. They have had 2 months to work on it. Also this is not the first time there has been a physical altercation in Congress.
Re January sixth, I’ve asked people who “thought it was the worst thing since…” what did they think would happen if the rioters/protestors had occupied the Capitol? They spout something like Trump would over turn the election, not leave the White House and so on. Then I ask them how? They seem to think the President is a king or something. The truth is that nothing would have happened. The Constitution has no provisions for over turning an election. I swear that modern media has made adults think like children.
Apart from getting these concessions and getting them in public, the Freedom Caucus members have demonstrated that they have the ability to stop debt ceiling and appropriations bills. I hope they have the will to do so. I hope they persuade more Rs to join them on these issues.
What could it be asks the Phd?
It would be politics Frederick.
Otto von Bismarck compared politics to sausage making, but he is an old timey guy. This is not a new feature of politics.
@om:What could it be asks the Phd?
Not what I asked at all. Besides the drive-by personal attacks, there’s either a failure to read, or a deliberate distortion. Better to scroll on by my posts if you don’t like them. And I’ll do the same with yours. I’m not asking you to agree. Just letting you know my intention.
Even better, there’s a snippet of code you can run that will filter out my posts so you can’t see them and they won’t bother you. Worth a Google.
Not the Borg collective of the Ds. — physicsguy
opposition theater — Frederick
Nice ones.
I hate the oppo theater. How to evaluate a politician? Don’t believe everything they say, but watch their votes. Except that doesn’t work either. No wonder most folks don’t even try to unravel it all.
Neo had a couple reasons why no one seems to want the Speaker’s job listed previously, but left off an important one.
Because guys like McConnell & McCarthy hold the purse strings & can cut their members off at the knees if they are crossed by them. I think the pledge to keep McCarthy’s PAC out of open primaries may be a very important one if it holds.
The 6 holdouts had better be extremely popular in their districts, because the GOPe will be coming after them in 2024 and money will be no object.
So, the guy no one can actually explain WHY he should be third in line for the White House becomes Speaker after several days of public embarrassment by making “concessions,” most of which should have been no-brainer things for a Republican-led House to do in the first place. Do I have that right?
Prediction: Some good stuff will happen because McCarthy at least appears to recognize the current political environment of the GOP, unlike McConnell and other Republican Senators who are totally clueless, but there will be a bunch of betrayals/collapses/surrenders to pressure from the White House, Dem-led Senate, and the media. There will also be plenty of times when McCarthy again reveals himself to be the dullest knife in the drawer. And NOTHING will come of it because we’ll be told “We can’t possibly unseat McCarthy now because of the primaries/2024 election/some other excuse!”
Mike
MBunge:
You write:
No, you don’t have that right.
First of all, no one campaigns for Speaker or justifies a candidate for Speaker by saying why that person should be third in line for the White House. Although every Speaker IS third in line, it’s not ordinarily the reason that person is elected, and few of them would qualify to be president or even be a desirable president.
However, plenty of people have explained why McCarthy would be a good Speaker, which is the real issue. You may not care for their reasoning or for them, but they’ve certainly explained it. Have you like, looked at articles favorable to him that attempt to explain it? I suggest you start with this Federalist article on the subject from October of 2022. One of the people promoting McCarthy for Speaker was Jordan.
Lastly, I’m glad you put “concessions” in scare quotes, although perhaps you did it for other reasons that I would have done it. The reason I think it belongs there is that you are making an assumption that all the things in those rules were concessions that McCarthy would not otherwise have agreed to without the extreme pressure. I submit that some of them were just that (the vacate rule that diminished his power, for example, making it easier to have a vote to get rid of him), and some were things he would have done anyway.
Frederick:
What I got from that article you linked is that, although your points #1 and #2 were correct, they were misleading because you left something important out, and the thing you left out was part of McConnell’s reasoning.
Here’s what you linked. Your first and second points were these:
But this point the article made is what you left out:
In other words, the Democrats DID have the votes to do what they wanted. They just would have had to do it through reconciliation – which would have worked. So McConnell knew it was going to happen; the only question was how and at what cost. I believe he figured – rightly so – that if it went past the deadline, the media and the Democrats would push the idea that those horrible uncaring vicious Republicans were hamstringing the government again and for what? Actually, for nothing, if the GOP couldn’t stop them in the end. It would have been just theater, with some risks for the GOP in terms of public perceptions as shaped by the media.
This is your big beef with him? I don’t know what I would have done in his shoes, but I’m not in his shoes. However, I certainly see his point, although I also see why you would disagree. But seeing this as some unforgivable and especially awful thing he did makes no sense to me.
Also, the no-filibuster thing was just for that one vote.
We’ll see how it goes with McCarthy at the helm. I have hopes. He has the opportunity to be a very good Speaker, to advance goals most Republicans hold. The ball is in his court.
I felt somewhat the same when Obama became president. He had the opportunity to be a transformational leader in a good way. Instead, he chose radical politics and enabled racial divisiveness.
I’m glad it’s over. I am one of those people who don’t like to see my party squabbling amongst themselves. I see how effective the Dems tactics are and wish we could be more effective than they are in advancing our issues. Since the MSM is doing the Democrats bidding and those voters that swing elections mostly get their info from the MSM, we know that the MSM has depicted this debate as a “clown show” or worse. To effectively govern and win more elections you have to get those swing voters on your side. IMO, this exercise did just the opposite.
That said, I hope the House Republicans can find ways to unite on at least doing spending bills in normal order. That would be real progress.
I have no doubt that they are going to uncover a lot of damaging info about the Bidens, his administration, FBI/CIA/DOJ., etc. Whether that information gets to the swing voters is the problem. With Musk running Twitter maybe a lot, more will get out and make a difference.
My expectations of what they will actually accomplish are low, but I still support the “Commitment to America” goals and hope they will work to make them happen.
@neo: I don’t agree that Democrats had the vote to approve the debt ceiling before the deadline, and so McConnel didn’t know it would happen. If McConnell had not broken the Republican filibuster there might not have been time to pass the debt ceiling through reconciliation.
If I understand right, you are saying he was engaging in this kind of theater now to avoid another kind theater later that would have had worse consequences. I don’t have your confidence that I can pick out who’s zooming who, and I don’t know what McConnell’s done to justify giving him so much credit for intentions.
This is your big beef with him?
No.
But seeing this as some unforgivable and especially awful thing he did makes no sense to me.
Didn’t say this. It’s the thing I saw, that taught me what to look for, and then I saw it all the time.
Also, the no-filibuster thing was just for that one vote.
That’s why I’ve always said the filibuster is theater. It can always and at any time be put aside for one vote. You don’t ever really need 60 votes, you only ever need 51.
Frederick:
They could have avoided any filibuster through reconciliation (which can be used for budget-type bills), and passed it with the very same totals they passed it with more quickly by avoiding the filibuster. I have no idea why you would think otherwise.
The reason I asked those questions about whether you found this a big beef is that you seemed to be presenting it as some sort of turning point for you.
And yes, of course the filibuster can be nuked, but until now for the most part both parties have respected it because it protects minority rights for both parties. If one party thinks nuking it is worth the risks – or if they think that they will never have to surrender power – the filibuster will probably be gone, especially if that party is the Democrat party. It almost happened last session, but didn’t.
until now for the most part both parties have respected it because it protects minority rights for both parties.
A rule that is set aside any time the majority wishes, for one time or all time at the majority’s option, protects nothing.
They could have avoided any filibuster through reconciliation…passed it with the very same totals they passed it with more quickly by avoiding the filibuster.
Not without risk and cost according to what I linked…
Democrats have shied away from raising the debt limit unilaterally via budget reconciliation — a process that allows a measure to pass the Senate with a simple majority — because of how arduous and time-consuming that approach would likely be… neither wanted to risk the potentially catastrophic economic effects that going past this deadline could have… Democrats, meanwhile, are able to avoid using budget reconciliation, giving them more time to focus on passing another piece of legislation …
McConnell removed the risk, did them a solid–and all his friends, patrons, and clients got paid on time since the debt ceiling was extended. And that was the real motive, right there. The voters need to see the GOPe pretend to care, and the cronies need to see the checks go out on time.
@neo: You and I don’t differ so much on facts but on priors, I think. I’m no longer willing to credit the Republicans in the Senate and the House, collectively, for good intentions which they don’t have the power to realize, and it’s because of cases where they have power they don’t make use of. That’s partly colored by my personal experience, which you could not share, of dealings with government agencies and government officials. (You may have dealings of your own with them, but they wouldn’t have been mine, of course.)
But because I think you’re a reasonable person, and I think you and I reason in the same way despite not sharing the same priors or coming to the same conclusions, I think that if you and I see the same set of facts over time we will converge to the same conclusion. Maybe I’ll end up seeing it your way. I appreciate your civil engagement and the opportunity to learn things, and I have always admired that you will dig behind the narrative to get to the truth. Not a lot of people do that.
Frederick:
Thanks!
I understand what you mean by “priors.” However, I have a different attitude towards the whole thing. I’m aware of “priors” and of course I have them, but I try to place them aside while evaluating people. Although I don’t ignore or forget my “priors”, I find it helps to put them aside at least at the outset when someone takes a certain office and try to be as objective as possible and as perceptive as I can when I evaluate someone or something.
I believe that’s how I was able to change politics – or at least to re-evaluate some of my past perceptions, because my basic political philosophy has never really changed. That’s also how, although I initially evaluated Trump as candidate and felt there was a very good chance that he might be a terrible president, once he became president I was able to put my “priors” away for the moment and come rather quickly to the conclusion that he was doing pretty well.
Same for Obama – although I came to a different conclusion very quickly, which was that he was every bit as bad as I had expected he would be. I even wrote a PJ article immediately after his election cautioning objectivity in evaluating him. The story of what happened after that is something I told in this post as well as this one.
@ Frederick to Neo > “I appreciate your civil engagement and the opportunity to learn things, and I have always admired that you will dig behind the narrative to get to the truth. Not a lot of people do that.”
Double ditto that observation.
There are so many people here with different priors (what the Left calls “lived experiences” for rhetorical reasons*) that our many discussions present a cyclorama from all sorts of viewpoints that never make it into the media news narrative from either the left or the right.
Whether or not any of our commentary is “true” probably isn’t ascertainable in many cases, but it’s certainly a lively exercise in (mostly) civilized discourse.
*There is a quasi-philosophical foundation for the phrase “lived experiences” in the Leftist mantra of “subjective truth” (including the insistence on calling one’s memories or prejudices “my truth”), although I’m more inclined to believe that’s an intellectual fraud in service to their power-agenda (see O’Neill’s spiked post).
The Right in general believes in objective truth (THE truth), and calls “your truth” opinions.
Some of you may remember the flap over President Trump’s press secretary’s statement about the estimates of crowd size at his inauguration in 2017.
“Sean Spicer, our press secretary, gave alternative facts.” — Kellyanne Conway, interview on NBC “Meet the Press,” Jan. 22.
She had to walk it back because of the media mockery, but IMO it was clear she meant Spicer’s numbers simply were in disagreement with other peoples’ estimates — all of them gave “alternative facts” until there was a definitive count** (if that ever happened).
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/03/kellyanne-conway-alternative-facts-mistake-oscars
“Well,” she said, “it was alternative information and additional facts. And that got conflated. But, you know, respectfully, Norah, I see mistakes on TV every single day and people just brush them off. Everybody thinks it’s just so funny that the wrong … movie was, you know, heralded as the winner of the Oscars.”
IOW, Spicer was presenting a subjective truth based on his lived experiences.
Not surprisingly, Neo wrote a post on the general topic.
https://www.thenewneo.com/2021/05/28/lived-experiences-are-only-relevant-in-therapy-in-a-memoir-between-family-members-or-close-acquaintances-or-to-the-individual/
The lively discussion at that post included links to two articles that I think are worth reviewing, because they elucidate how the phrase “lived experiences” carries a lot of subsumed connotations that distinguish it from the usual meaning of “experiences” (or “priors”) — and thus why a conservative’s alternative views of life simply don’t count.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/marxist-lives-matter-daniel-greenfield/
https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/03/19/the-tyranny-of-lived-experience/
** It’s not at all uncommon for a host of “alternative facts” (or alternative information and additional facts) to be presented on a topic before some of them become the “actual facts” as more information becomes available and spreads to more people — which takes significant time and effort when a large faction is intent on avoiding it.
I’m intrigued by the penchant of the Left and the Democrats to continually re-assert their preferred “alternative facts” even after the real ones have been definitively established.
(See, for one example, how the NY Times editorial-side ranted about Sarah Palin’s cross-hairs ad being the proximate cause of the shooting of Gabby Giffords years after the NYT news-side retracted their original “alternative facts” because they fell apart on examination.)
Other examples are left as an exercise for the reader.
Because every social science construct has to have an analog in the physical sciences (I think there was an International Treaty on that back in the Sixties), here is the one that explains the collapse of Alternative Facts into Actual Truth:
Or more colloquially:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=probability%20wave