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.
- 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.
- 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
So I'm just thinking about the numbers here, but if the procedural vote to just get things moving a bit failed 216-212, would that suggest the hard-line Republicans voted with Democrats to kill it? So they essentially voted with Democrats to keep their non-hard-line counterparts from voting with Democrats? And Democrats are voting against because... they don't like the bill? They want to keep McCarthy in this position to force him to work with them? This article talks a lot about the Republican divide but treats Democrats like kids in the back seat along for the ride. But they have nearly half the House themselves, so if there is a divide in the Republicans, where their vote goes matters.
Or did all the Republicans vote against it even though their speaker pushed for it, and the Dems just want to get on with the governing?
Either way, not a good look for Republicans, and Democrats are essentially ignored in the problem.
Edit: I get the impressions people think I'm blaming Dems at all, which I'm not. It was just unclear to me how this was playing out, what the Dems motivations were, and how these votes were going, and wished it was part of the article.
Democrats voted no because it's a divergence from the deal McCarthy negotiated in May. Hard-line Republicans voted no because it's not enough of a divergence and only gives them some of what they asked for (even though what they're already getting is a non-starter in the Democrat-controlled Senate).
McCarthy could present a bill that adheres to the previously negotiated spending limits and it would almost 100% pass with support from moderate Democrats and Republicans overriding the no votes from the freedom caucus and a few progressive Democrats, but McCarthy is afraid to do that because the wing nuts are threatening to oust him from the speakership if he doesn't cave to their demands.
Make no mistake: the Democrats have zero responsibility for this mess. And make no mistake: the only way this ends is McCarthy growing the balls to tell the wing nuts to get fucked. The only variable is whether that happens before or after a government shutdown.
Ah, okay, so the Dems voted against because they aren't given anything and McCarthy already reneged on their previous deal. I feel like that's some important context the article could have used. But that does mean the hard-liners are voting with the Dems, which is ironic considering their whole position.
Problem is that the Republicans don't negotiate with the Democrats so they have nothing to vote for. If they actually negotiated in good faith there would probably already be a bill passed by about 70 percent of the house.