KilroyLeges

KilroyLeges t1_j77ug81 wrote

I agree with your assessment. I will add the comment that I live in a decently sized, rapidly growing metro, where average incomes are above average. In the last year or 2, I have seen an explosion of Family Dollar, Dollar General, and Dollar Tree stores in town. My wife and I were out last night and commented on noticing 2 new ones on the same major road less then 1 mile apart. It seems to be an unreal amount of expansion.

7

KilroyLeges t1_isxxqit wrote

That’s my understanding of these rules. I had a client who I built a close relationship with as we put the contract together. The lawyers on both sides slowed it so it took like a year to sign the contracts which delayed their project. The couple of main staff I worked with there and their lead procurement person and I decided to grab some drinks and dinner to celebrate and because it was right at the holidays. They wouldn’t let me pay any of their tab because of the rules, not even a shared appetizer.

5

KilroyLeges t1_isxquh1 wrote

I don't disagree that many in the Republican party and MAGA movement would love for this to be the result in the coming months. However, conviction in the Senate on an impeachment requires a 2/3 majority vote. There is no chance the GOP attains that level of majority in either house of Congress this November.

The Rules on how a Speaker is elected by the House are vague enough that yes, they can elect a Speaker that is not a member of Congress, like Trump, with a simple majority vote. I don't see the entirety of House Republicans choosing to go down that path. McCarthy would most likely become Speaker. There are some crazies who might go ahead and vote for Trump or someone like MTG even. If they do, they might split the Republican vote enough to kill their own plans and potentially end up with Pelosi back in as Speaker.

None of that diminishes the need to vote this November for Democrat candidates to avoid further disaster. I'm just saying that your vision is a long shot at best.

27

KilroyLeges t1_isxq4px wrote

I'm in an industry which routinely bids on projects with public entities, including states, cities, and counties. In almost every situation, there is explicit language regarding procurement regulations or laws that strictly prohibit offering any kind of gratuity to a public official. It's standard across the board to have laws in place that ban companies from offering anything of "value" to a public employee. Doing so is supposed to be grounds, at a minimum, for disqualification of that vendor from the current bid, possibly for all future business, and the potential of criminal prosecution. I guess if it's a LEO though receiving the bribe, they have no reason to prosecute?

40