this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2023
338 points (97.7% liked)

politics

19089 readers
4157 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 105 points 1 year ago (3 children)

House Republican Says Jim Jordan’s Tally Is ‘Gonna Be Going Backwards’ In Tomorrow’s Vote

You wouldn't expect Conservatives to actually move forward, would you?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] negativenull@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago

True regressives

[–] son_named_bort@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

We must move backward, not forward, downward, not backward, and constantly twirling, twirling towards fascism.

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Or at this point be able to count either.

[–] Saneless@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Or stop defending rapists

[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 87 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"There’s a coordinated effort among the 55 Republicans who opposed Jordan in an internal conference meeting last week to build on their votes of opposition to ensure that he loses more votes each round, according to three Republicans familiar with the plan. In other words, he loses more votes with each round he holds.”

~ WAPO

Even in the GOP, assholes sometimes get what they have coming

[–] Nobody@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

The Cult of Reagan may be at an all-time low, but they still have the numbers to thwart the Cult of Trump in the house. And they still have total control of the R side of the senate.

[–] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 60 points 1 year ago (2 children)

My bet is still nine votes before we get a new speaker. At the end of the day, they're all just haggling about price. McCarthy knew that, so he agreed to whatever price in order to win. Now they all know that part of the price is also betrayal. With a party that's been purging everyone who isn't loyal, they don't know how to handle that.

[–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think it will keep going until the more moderate ones reach across the aisle to the democrats. They'll have to completely cut off any power the extreme right has.

[–] Skyrmir@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's kind of like all it would take is for Putin to leave Ukraine for the war to end. Sure it could happen at any time, but that's not the reality we're living in.

[–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

I didn't say it's likely to happen anytime soon.

[–] SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

Third time’s the charm! Or some multiple of three. I want to see if we can get to 21 failed votes and have the winner declared via the Blackjack Rule.

[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 49 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Hannity's staff has been sending emails to Republican Congressmen trying to sway their votes. What a douche.

[–] silverbax@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

How utterly silly. Imagine the delusion to set a deadline for answers from people who don't work for you and owe you no response other than a form letter.

[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Speaking of delusions, what's with this talk of "wide open borders"? I don't dip my head into the conservative new bubble enough to know what they're talking about. Did Biden bulldoze Trump's glorious wall that definitely got built?

[–] Krackalot@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Actually, he's building more, only because it's already earmarked for the wall, and he couldn't get the funds re appropriated. About the open borders thing. It's been one of their claims for years. Get ready, it's almost time for the every four year immigrant caravan to approach the border. Better vote conservative, or they'll tek ur jerbs!

[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago

Exactly. They keep throwing around the term "crisis at the border" as if there's some new impending catastrophe that only voting Republican will solve.

I just wish more people pushed back and said "What do you mean a wide open border? Didn't your guy just fix that? Oh he didn't? Then why would you want to elect him again?"

[–] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

It's an implicit threat. It's clear that if they don't give him an answer that satisfies him, and the only such answer is that they will support Gym, then he will turn all the MAGA voters against them.

[–] bquintb@midwest.social 27 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
[–] iforgotmyinstance@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

How are they not embarrassed?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

Plenty of them claim to be when interviewed by the media, but it doesn't seem to make a difference.

They don't care, they know people know they're full of shit. BUT, their people are too dumb to realize they're full of shit so they eat it up. That's all they care about.

[–] psycho_driver@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

They're just looking for their next scapegoat here. I actually wouldn't be too sad if it's Gym. He's been around long enough.

[–] downpunxx@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

I think he deserves multiple insulting nicknames. I've been calling him Jimuary 6th.

[–] _number8_@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (4 children)

they're still doing this bullshit? can't they vote on something useful?

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 40 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They literally can't until they successfully vote for a new Speaker. Our entire system of government relies on the elected officials doing their job and constituents holding them to that.

But there's an entire party with talking points that the government in general just doesn't work for 50 years, so now we're at the point where people that grew up hearing that all the time, and being elected based on that theory, have to not do their job to prove it true.

The issue is that with a FPTP voting system where it inevitably results in two major parties, just a handful of politicians can grind everything to a halt. This was inevitable and easily predicted, but the GOP has a knack for not only ignoring but actively trying to insist reality isn't happening so they let it get to the point where a handful of MAGATS can hold the entire country hostage.

[–] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This isn't necessarily the fault of FPTP. If anything, proper parliaments are generally even more unstable, since a governing coalition involves a lot more distinct interests cooperating. The last Israeli government, for instance, collapsed after a single member abandoned the coalition. You also have situations where one of the coalition parties withdraws.

The primary difference between Congress and parliaments is at what point the coalitions form. In modern parliaments, many different ideological groups all run their own independent elections to gain seats in parliament, and then complex negotiations occur to form a majority coalition that establishes the government and opposition groups. In Congress, that coalition building happens before elections ever occur. You still have a bunch of distinct ideological groups, but they've already sorted themselves into two broad coalitions, the Democrats and the Republicans. That's why each party has a lot more ideological diversity within it than European parties.

What's been so interesting about this is that it's essentially Congress devolving into a parliament, which is fun for political nerds and for people who enjoy watching Republicans suffer.

[–] TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

It always frustrates me when people project assumptions from more parliamentary systems onto the US. They assume that Democrats and Republicans are uniform, when many smaller factions exist. Those smaller groups can grow in number and power, influencing the party line. Neoliberalism has become less of a norm in the Democratic party while limited social democracy gains ground. Fascism dominates the Republican party as neoconservatives lost ground.

The president usually rules for the party, bending their stated opinions to fit the party line. Bush Sr. called Reagan's fiscal policy "voodoo economics," but still tried to stick with what worked for Reagan when elected. Their actual views shine through more when they have too make tougher decisions where the party consensus isn't strong enough. Trump was unique in how he molded Republicans to fit his image, but even he followed the party line when they resisted his more outrageous ideas.

I don't like the two party system, but it's not as damning as people would think. I hate the ways corruption has been legalized, but even countries with stricter laws get ruled by shady interests. Better systems help, but they're not foolproof.

[–] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago

No, they can't.
They're the General Obstruction Party
Their entire purpose is to keep the government from doing anything useful

[–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

Not without a speaker. The speaker is the one that brings things to the floor to be voted on. That's why it has never happened before. Everyone understood the extreme consequences of not having a speaker.

[–] VikingHippie@lemmy.wtf 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

They actually can't. Afair they literally aren't allowed to vote on anything substantive until they have a speaker. Of course, that suits most of the GOP just fine.

load more comments (2 replies)

Love ta see it!

load more comments
view more: next ›