politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
do you think there's nothing that needs attention? no problems that require legislation to solve, no... I don't know, aid packages to be signed. or relief for anything....?
I'm speaking purely in terms of sportsball/ realpolitik, in the most cynical manner possible.
Like, I can't think about anything other than funding international war that both Democrats and Republicans agree enough upon to be worth bringing to the floor other than to say you tried and let it die so you can campaign on it.
I guess my thinking is that this might have been enough for at least the Democrats in the house to run on, if they can keep the Republicans annoyed enough at it being presented as a Democratic victory, and especially if they can point to Republicans revolting against Johnson as to why they can't get any more done for this session of congress.
On the Republican side, the passage doesn't seem like a victory for Republican voters. No real accomplishments other than being able to fund the Israeli genocide. I'm not sure how high that ranks of a priority that is for Republican voters. Like the genocide was fully funded, it didn't really need the help, so it just doesn't have the same staying power as funding the Ukrainian resistance does for Democratic voters.
I guess my thinking is that if we go into November without another single thing getting done in the house, the W for this season goes into the D column, almost certainly. So the need to get more done is mostly going to come from the R side of aisle.
the issue is that the DNC has become the "Any functioning adult" party. they're going to take a hit if they vote and congress completely seizes up. better to work someone who won't try to fuck you over than to get somebody whose going to be worse. and congress will completely seize up.
Toungue in cheek obviously but the point remains. I firmly agree with your point about the Democrats ability to campaign on the "Any functional adult" party, but that goes away if they elevate Republicans the level of 'also being function adults'. Congress being seized up actually works for the Democrats so long as they can firmly pin it on Republicans, unless its explicitly a Democratic policy priority. Which is like.. Maybe? But that works so hard against Johnson and the Republicans in the house; his leash just isn't that long.
So my bet goes to stagnation, which I assess as a D' win. If you think there is something both D' and R' can vote yes on going into campaign season, I'm all ears. Maybe marijuana legalization?
To answer the assassin goose…
Anything they can get. They’ve got more leverage with Johnson to push whatever agenda they want than they will have with who or whatever comes next.
(Edit going nuclear with the attack birds, are we? lol. )
Yeah that's just...
Abysmal political strategy. Like if you want to lose an election your party is already struggling in (as in, the Democrats are struggling), the Democrats should do exactly what you describe.
The only things on the table that Republicans are willing to work on are gigantic L's for the Democrats. There is no issue (unless you have one you are holding back on, and again, maybe mj reform?) that Republicans would put forward that Democratic voters can support.
If they did what you are advising, Democrats would go from having 'won' the house game of the last 2 years (from the minority position no less), to having 'lost' the house game. It would be idiotic to give Republicans one iota of rope more than exactly what it takes to hang themselves.
(Tongue in cheek, I actually appreciate our discussion here.)
The problem is that people are sick of exactly these games.
We want a functional government. Breaking it… because you got the ball and are going home isn’t going to convince any centrists to flip. Progressives also don’t see them doing enough.
They don’t have to agree to things. They just need to make as much of an effort. They’ll be more successful to that with someone who won’t move the goalposts every five minutes.
We nuke Johnson, they loose a seat at the table. The next guy simply can’t be trusted. Nobody wins.
We keep that seat, we can still nuke his plans… or not. It gives them more than they had before.
Centrists?
This is such a persistent myth about American politics. There is basically no evidence to suggest that a 'center' has ever existed outside of being a convenient narrative for NPR to orbit around. You don't win American elections appealing to 'centrists' (who statistically don't exist), you win them driving out a base. We have a strongly bimodal electorate that has only gotten more and more bimodal since the year 2000.
We have 3 demographics in American in order of volume: Independents, Democrats, and Republicans. Democrats, if they want to win, need to drive their base out, and expand it (if possible).
No Republican will vote Democratic in this election. The best you can do is get them to stay home. But no quantity of political capitol will bring them to the Democratic side. Its a complete waste of resources.
Democrats can only drive out their base (go after policy positions their base wants), or bring in independents (expand to policy positions independents favor). Its just naive to the current environment to promote working with Republicans as a viable path for house Democrats. It would be completely shooting themselves in the foot.
this isn't entirely true. my dad, for example, has been a life long republican who will be voting for Biden- and did in the last election.
Besides which, Biden is a centrist. he's only progressive compared to literal, actual fascists like trump, Desantis and Abbot. that he's also slightly more progressive than Obama or the Clintons just demonstrates the two big camps inside the big tent.
the point I'm trying to make is that no matter what your goal is, you're going to get closer to it with a known quantity like Johnson that whatever sack of smashed asshole they find next. Democrats don't lose anything. but they might get something if Johnson owes them. and he'd owe them bigtime.
They don't lose anything because they can still nuke any single effort done by republicans. its how we got the Ukraine aid passed- by nuking Israel aid until they complied.
Maga republicans will lose nothing if congress gets nuked. in fact, it'll probably make their base happy. because "Murica, Fuck Yeah!" or... something.
Yeah except the election. MAGA has held the house now for two years and has jack shit to show for it. They've shown they can't govern. Lets keep it that way. Stop extending olive branches to these people acting in bad faith. I've heard and understand your points, but you're treating the house like there is time left on the clock to do anything and there simply isn't, and you haven't provided a single tangible thing to go after that both D' and R' could work on (I offered mj reform, I think that would be popular on both sides).
So you are simply wrong. Like flat out. There is only negative value for house Democrats to deepen or expand their relationship with house Republicans when they've already got the W. House Democrats don't need to get anything done in the next 4 months because they got the aid bill passed, and can point to the incompetence of Republicans as to why nothing else got done. There is 0 political gains to working or supporting Johnson. Its only political costs. Working with the Republicans any further would be like throwing the ball instead of taking a knee when you can just run out the clock.
Democrats got what they wanted. Its time to take their W and go back to their home districts and campaign. Leave R's with that shitsucking taste in their mouth.
See you have some of the cynicism necessary.. but..
Who said it’s a fucking Olive branch? You?
They have the ability now to nuke any legislation that comes across. Dems already have the power.
Protecting him means concessions, it means moving the Overton window back to where it should be.
It means going on the offensive.
Instead you want memes and headlines. Take the pittance and go home. Is that it? Obstructionism is their play book. We start using it and it leads to the same dumb place.
It makes it easier for them to pass their fascist bullshit. Not harder.
You bruh. That's your argument. Its what you've been arguing for this entire thread. Your argument, not mine.
That's what working with Republicans is. Its an olive branch. Its redemption for the Republicans being so clearly in the wrong in terms of strategy for the past 8 years. Like they've been governing for a long time and have actually nothing to show for it. Now you've found an ally in Mike Johnson and you are saying house Democrats should work with Mike Johnson to do "stuff" , i.e., pass laws in the House. You are silly if you think you'll get anything other than conservative legislation passed with Mike Johnson. And your argument is that House Democrats should? Bruh.
And if that isn't the case, I've asked you what laws Democrats should go for, like whats the material position here, whats the specific policy or legislation, and you've offered none. Your 'going on the offensive' is just handing R's the opportunity to turn a loss into a win. Its naive, poorly thought out, and you don't even have a single bill or law to offer that Democrats could use this strategy with. You simply aren't cynical enough to appreciate the cost of the strategy you've outlined, and its not clear you've even really though of it enough to have an answer considering you cant tell me what legislation they should go after.
Its incredibly naive and its generally kinda silly, the kind of piss-ant level "appeal to the moderates" analysis that Hillary ~~used to beat Trump~~ oh wait lose to Trump.
You clearly are lacking in reading comprehension.
Or you’re just trolling to piss me off.
No. It’s taking the best action to advance democratic policies. We won’t get any policies or influence with whoever comes next.
Welcome to a split congress. Your position would give them free rein to try and pass whatever they want in the house.
It’s not an olive branch. It’s a leash.
Sealioning. Go watch some political news. If you can’t find something worthwhile, you’re not paying attention.
And again, it is not handing them a win. They win if we do get rid of him just as much as we lose. We gain nothing by it, but we give up that leash.
Your way clears the way for the fascists to do whatever the fuck they want, with no motivation at all to come to the table. At least with Johnson on the leash, we can block most of what comes down; and maybe get something meaningful.
Which is probably better than the headlines we’ll get.