this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2024
69 points (94.8% liked)

politics

19072 readers
4243 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Just off the top of my head? FAA reauthorization, FY2025 federal budget package, …oh that pesky temporary stopgap funding measure to re-up this summer, some election integrity bills…

Stop gap, for sure, same with FAA. Not sure election integrity is a 'need to have' for the House 'writ large'. Would be a big feather for Dems, not sure Repubs care.

I'm still very dubious of the argument in favor of House Dems working with Repubs. Dems have finally wrangle the Repubs onto their heals, and giving out any unnecessary points seems counter productive. I think this because I think, for House Republicans, their biggest issue going into November is that they've got absolutely jack shit to show for their time in office, except for a few Democratic wins. From a Dem strategy perspective, it just doesn't make sense to give the R's anything to campaign on, and the R's are extremely desperate for anything.

I'd rather suffer through a few more months of a do nothing congress, and then sweep the House into a Democratic super majority than offer some fawning victory lap points to only somewhat less extreme Republicans. I think Democrats are well positioned for that, but they need anything that comes out of the House to be a clear Democratic victory. Thoughts?

[–] solidgrue@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I'm still very dubious of the argument in favor of House Dems working with Repubs.

Compromise starts somewhere, and someone has to go first. Will it be the Dems? Probably. In 2024? Meh. Probably better to not.

I'd rather suffer through a few more months of a do nothing congress, and then sweep the House into a Democratic super majority

For the next Congress? Sure, why not? I know who I'm voting for already. I'm not young myself, but I have young adult chikdren. I'd like to see a more progressive agenda for their sake. The best tree is the one you planted 20 years ago. The next best tree is the one you plant today.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

I know who I’m voting for already.

Yeah I think we're pretty locked in at this point, at least in regards to preference. Turnout however, I think is completely up in the air. I also agree on just accepting impass at this point. If the Dems see this as an opportunity for bipartisanship, that's just political suicide. They can cleanly make this a referendum on the very principal of modern republicanism as being obstructionist (worthless house), anti-women (RvW), criminals (Trump on trial). Like its pretty easy. Just go home and campaign.