this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
141 points (96.1% liked)

politics

19135 readers
3039 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
 

Having lost the first vote to become House speaker, Rep. Jim Jordan will try again on a decisive second ballot that will test whether the hard-edged ally of Donald Trump can win over the holdouts or if his bid for the gavel is collapsing, denied by detractors.

Ahead of Wednesday morning’s voting, Jordan made an unexpected plea for party unity, the combative Judiciary Committee chairman telling his colleagues on social media, “we must stop attacking each other and come together.”

But a surprisingly large and politically diverse group of 20 Republicans rejected Jordan’s nomination, many resisting the hardball tactics enforcing support, and viewing the Ohio congressman as too extreme for the powerful position of House speaker, second in line to the presidency.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 17 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Jordan is toast. He has no path to the speaker's chair and his opposition will only grow. The GOP plan to float a motion to give Patrick McHenry more authority, and if concessions are given it will get Dem votes.

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

give Patrick McHenry more authority

This seems like a horrible precedent being set but nobody seems to have a problem with it.

[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think the majority party will not be able to elect a speaker too often.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Idk congress has never gotten more functional in my lifetime, just consistently less

Hey at least they are being consistent

[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago

Point taken. But, this has never happened in my lifetime.

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The GOP plan to float a motion to give Patrick McHenry more authority

Shredding the Constitution to fix a problem created by the GOP isn't a good solution

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

I don't know how much of the constitution is shredded. If the motion only gives the pro tempore additional powers until the end of the year, say, not much shredded. It's a way to give them time but stay in business.

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Then they just do the same thing again next year and suddenly we never have a "real" speaker again. Unless we get actual consequences along the lines of a snap election, this seems like a bad idea.

[–] TigrisMorte@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

Patrick McHenry is a scumbag as well, not an improvement