this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2023
143 points (98.0% liked)

politics

18917 readers
4302 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] RaincoatsGeorge@lemmy.zip 41 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Siding with this cuck is never going to be the play. He wants to oust McCarthy but only to replace him with someone more extreme. Better to let these idiots keep having a gasoline fight than to pick the literal pedophile nazi caucus in some misguided attempt to resolve this issue.

Let the country see which side is consistently driving them off a cliff. Many won't care. But others will take notice.

[–] LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

….than to pick the literal pedophile nazi caucus

They already did that with house speaker Dennis Hastert (R ).

[–] NewNewAccount@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Pedophilia issues aside, the Neocon Republicans that put Hastert in power hardly resemble today’s quasi-fascist Republicans.

[–] twistypencil@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Won't this result in them kicking Mccarthy out, and then failing over and over and over to vote on someone new, utterly paralyzing themselves into a parapetic fit? Do they block government of they can't get a speaker voted in?

[–] RaincoatsGeorge@lemmy.zip 1 points 11 months ago

Well they would need to unify their entire party to get the votes needed and they've proven they can't do that. So whichever literal nazi they suggest won't even come close to getting the votes.

So certainly what could happen is mckkkarthy comes crawling to the democrats to try and get their vote which isn't happening without major concessions. He might succeed but best of luck when it comes time for reelection. They'll call him a traitor to their republican nazi cause and vote in someone twice as fascist and racist.

In either case the most important thing is we keep hammering home the truth. These people are traitors to this nation. They have consistently shown they cannot handle these positions of power and will outright try to overthrow democracy if they don't get their way. Don't let up on that message. Make sure all the rural fucks in Idaho and Ohio hear it. The message has to be louder then their closet pedophile uncle Carl's Facebook posts that suggest the opposite. It's not that hard.

[–] Nobody@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (6 children)

I don’t think the Constitution requires the speaker to be a member of the House. Dems and a handful of reps could give it back to Paul Ryan.

[–] Bipta@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago

Paul Ryan retired because he wasn't willing to deal with these maniacs in their first evolution - no way he comes back now. I'd support him over McCarthy for sure though.

[–] ____@infosec.pub 7 points 1 year ago

Correct. I can think of worse people, like the current occupant of the seat.

Ryan wouldn’t be my choice, but beats hell out of anything the current crop of Rs could put up.

[–] gastationsushi@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

Paul Ryan sucks.

If Democrats were able to form a coalition with anyone, it would be Biden district Republicans. In that case, they should give the speakership to a Biden district Republican and focus on new house rules that make it easier for Democrats to operate under a coalition house.

[–] nocturne213@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

I think Ole Marge tried to get trump as the speaker during the nonsense with McCarthy’s vote.

[–] big_brother@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

Why would they want Paul Ryan, he's an idiot

[–] twistypencil@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Dems could pick the speaker? How is that possible?

[–] thrawn@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

Speakership is voted on by House members, not party. A simple majority of votes is all it takes. If someone is absent, the amount of votes required goes down.

The Democrats are nearly half of the house, so if a few Republicans did not vote or joined the Democrats, their candidate would become Speaker. Because the Speaker can be anyone, not just a current House member, they could nominate not-McCarthy Paul Ryan and feasibly succeed. Ryan is likely not interested though.

[–] Cyberflunk@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Oh man, I thought it meant Pathfinder: Kingmaker

That was odd for a second

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 7 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


With the clock ticking down toward a government shutdown, Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz approached a Democratic lawmaker on the House floor this week with a surprising pitch.

Gaetz, who has been threatening Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s speakership almost daily, explained that his rebellion is motivated by a desire to find new leadership that keeps their word, tells the truth, and adheres to regular order – a message that this Democrat described to CNN as “utterly reasonable.”

“There’s a number of us … that are prepared to take the next action we need to take,” said GOP Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, who is working with a bipartisan group of lawmakers to circumvent leadership if there is a stalemate in the House – a process known as a discharge petition.

The wheeling-and-dealing illustrates how Democrats are now caught in the crosshairs of the GOP’s ongoing civil war, which has catapulted Congress to the brink of a government shutdown.

For their part, Democratic leaders are counseling their members to avoid getting locked into a position over McCarthy’s speakership, not wanting to do anything proactively, knowing that a misstep could have major ramifications for the House and their party.

The speaker, they argue, has violated their trust by launching an impeachment inquiry and going back on an agreement he struck with the White House on spending levels.


The original article contains 1,000 words, the summary contains 221 words. Saved 78%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

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

hey beavis… huh huh