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
You're correct. Democrats are not responsible for cleaning up this mess. But unlike Republicans, Democrats have a vested interest in a functioning government and serving the people. That's not happening while Republicans are milling about trying to grab power for themselves. Democrats can use their infighting against them to force some concessions that would restore the House to some semblance of functionality and resume the business of government.
You know why Jim Jordon didn't get enough votes? Why he has never passed a piece of legislation in his 16 years in the House of Representative? You’re getting a real time explanation by watching his campaign to become speaker. He can't build a coalition. His idea of soft power is twisting arms. Most House Democrats will tell you that they are ready to work with Republicans, no Republicans respond. Takes two to tango.
This has been the problem with Republicans for the last 30 years or so:
"WE'RE THE MINORITY PARTY! You have to do it OUR way or YOU'RE not being 'BIPARTISAN!'"
"WE'RE THE MAJORITY PARTY! You have to do it OUR way! Elections mean things!"
All thanks to that festering cunt Newt Gingrich.
That fat, adulterous asshole started us down the path of extreme partisanship. The world will be a better place when he dies.
The article has some valid points about Dem options, but how can the Dems expect the Magats to act in good faith? As some shitty ex-president said,"Fool me once..."
I think the only way to get a good faith promise out of the Republicans is to insist on a Speaker of the Dem's choice. Could be a Moderate Republican or a Moderate Democrat. But it has to be somebody who has a history of reaching across the aisle and keeping promises. With how the GOP of late has acted, I can't think of a single candidate on the R side of the Aisle.
They don't reach out to the MAGAts. They reach out to the ones voting against Gym and Scalise. The ones like McCarthy who are willing to cut a deal with Democrats in order to do their jobs instead of simply trolling the nation in the name of their Anointed One/God Emperor.
Choosing country over party doesn't really work out for them very well.
They're getting paid more than the vast majority of Americans. So I'm thinking it's working out pretty well, unfortunately.
Not the ones who chose country over party. They quickly get the boot.
Getting some concessions that the Republican majority would almost certainly reneg on would be both a tactical and strategic failure. A functioning government that serves the people is one with far fewer Republicans in it.
Depends on the concessions. A Moderate Democrat as Speaker would be one hell of a concession....
Agreed, but that's our responsibility. House Democrats can't do anything about that until we get out the votes.
It's too late. The Republican majority in the House is going to fuck everything up, with or without a Speaker. Democrats should not be party to that. Republicans in government will move us all from democracy to open government-supported fascism. Appeasement doesn't work against fascism. Cooperation doesn't work against fascism. Appeasement and cooperation only make a person complicit in the outcome.
It's going to get much worse than it already is, but we can't go back the way we came. The only way out is through.
I don't think that's true.
Exactly like the Republicans, Democrats have a vested interest in just creating enough of an appearance of serving the people to get re-elected, but not so much that it interferes with their actual goal of benefitting themselves and their wealthy cronies and patrons.
Republicans can do that fairly straightforwardly, by spinning lies about "deregulation" and "privatization" and such - by overtly pushing for legislation that will benefit the rich and just dressing it up in a sort of costume.
Democrats have a harder time of it because there's no easy way to make legislation explicitly designed to benefit the oligarchy look like it's designed to benefit the people at large. So Democrats' role is mostly just to provide the illusion of opposition - to stand against Republican proposals but not quite manage to defeat them, and to make proposals of their own but not quite manage to pass them.
And as far as that goes, this is a perfect opportunity for them. They can, and certainly will, just make ineffectual noise and accomplish nothing of substance, then blame the Republicans for the failure to accomplish anything of substance.
I see that enlightened centrism has once again reared its ugly head.
This from someone who self-evidently thinks that labels and stereotypes are fit substitutes for arguments.
Yes - I understand that your blind partisanship requires you to believe that opposition to one party requires absolute, unqualified, uncritical and unthinking obedience to the other, but though it's apparently beyond your own grasp, it is possible to both support a party and criticize it.
In fact, in a healthy representative democracy, that would arguably be the norm - the parties would be shifting to accommodate the criticisms of the people rather than presenting themselves as fait accompli and demanding unthinking loyalty and condemning criticism.
But of course, this is anything but a healthy representative democracy.
And that's not a coincidence.
You have utterly failed to offer anything substantial to the conversation. but we appreciate your participation nevertheless.
And right on cue, unintentional irony.