this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2023
89 points (95.9% liked)

politics

19097 readers
3244 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) is marching ahead with his Speakership bid despite increasingly grim signs for his path to the gavel, eyeing another floor vote on Thursday even as GOP lawmakers signal that his opposition is likely to grow.

“The expectation is, at least from the chatter I’m hearing, is that there will be some others that will move away from the Jordan candidacy,” Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.), who voted for Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) on the first two ballots, told reporters Wednesday afternoon.

“It’s very clear that those numbers are not there and that it’s gonna get a lot worse,” Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.), who also backed Scalise in the first two rounds of voting, said after Jordan’s second failed vote, noting that he does not think he has a path to the gavel.

One centrist Republican who supported Jordan on the first two ballots said they are planning to jump ship.

“I committed to two votes. I’m not able to on the 3rd,” the lawmaker told The Hill in a text message.

Another Republican told The Hill that slowly increasing the number of votes against Jordan is a strategy among those opposing the Ohio Republican.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 28 points 1 year ago (2 children)

One centrist Republican who supported Jordan

The Hill just making shit up

[–] jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de 28 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

"One Republican, that's shy about being a fascist, who supported Jordan" is a mouthful and redundant though.

[–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 11 points 1 year ago

True, but at least it doesn't invoke a species that's been extinct since at least 2008 🤷

[–] sik0fewl@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ya, pretty sure Liz Cheney was voted out in the last election. And she would not have voted for Jordan.

[–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Also, she's not even a moderate like the Dem leadership is pretending. She's a paleoconservative like her dad who only appears moderate in the company of fascists and lunatics, which is the vast majority of GOP politicians in Washington DC and most states now 😮‍💨

[–] kale@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 year ago

It's sad that "moderate" in this context means that someone can compromise, work cooperatively, and not resort to lying about other political views.

This is where parliamentary systems can sometimes force cooperation. The US setup kind of pushes towards two parties.

[–] paintbucketholder@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

She's a paleoconservative like her dad

Funny. I remember when her dad and his ilk were called "neoconservatives."

Time moves fast in the political realm.

[–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 1 points 1 year ago

That was Dubya. He pretended to be a new and more compassionate kind of conservative. The Dick never even pretended.