Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
McCarthy was kicked out because he worked with Democrats to prevent a government shutdown.
This is not a group of people who wants to work with Democrats on any issue what-so-ever. If they end up just working with Democrats anyway (in a way that gives Democrats more power than under McCarthy), then what the hell was the past 2 or 3 weeks for at all?
Then again, maybe the MAGA Republicans are actually that short-sighted and unable to see the long term (erm... 2weeks?) trends of politics...
Exactly. To them, working with Democrats is akin to exposing themselves to ebola.
MAGA Republicans probably aren’t as short-sighted themselves as we’d think, but their stances need to be able to turn on a dime since Trump ~~dictates~~ influences their views.
I dunno. After recent years, I would expect them to prefer being exposed to ebola than work with Dems. Especially if doing so "stuck it to them", so to speak.
Bleeding to death out of every orifice to own the libs. Feels right.
The thing is, there are still a handful of Republicans willing to work with Democrats, and with the 214 votes the Democrats can offer, it only needs three more Republicans to cross the aisle in a power-sharing agreement. So it's not that far-fetched. It's a question of which Republicans will find the courage to defy the extremists in their party.
You misunderstand the current state of politics.
Simply reaching out and talking with Democrats causes various Republicans to lose office. Its literally political suicide. Next year is an election year, and the House needs to win every 2 years to stay in office. They simply don't have any political cover and their careers will immediately end if they do what you suggest.
Then we have the same problem in 2025 when the new Congress appears, except everyone who worked with Democrats was voted out. Etc. etc. This has been going on for like 15+ years, from Boehner to Paul Ryan and more. This shit is the culimation of a decade-worth of radicalization of the Republican voter base.
Not in districts where Republicans win by narrow margins. Only in districts that are reliably red. Not every Republican seat is perfectly safe.
Losing Republican votes is more deadly than losing Democrat votes that you never had to begin with.
Just look at the last damn decade man. Literally every moderate Republican has been forced out of office in the last decade. The remaining moderates know what will happen if they fall on the sword like you think.
Its safer for a purple-state Republican to go MAGA than for a purple-state Republican to pretend that any Democrat would vote for them and try to reach out to the left. Losing 10% or 20% of the MAGA voters is suicide, and possibly even puts up a primary challenge to kick you out before you've even reached the main election.
The problem with your analysis is that it fails to take reality into account. A Republican congressman in New York (can't remember his name) specifically called out the extreme end of the party as SpaceGhost pointed out above.
House Republicans in particular are not a monolith and the numbers are very tight.
I would disagree only partially. Because we know these folks are going to vote for whoever has the (R) in their name.
It's also not like Democrats couldn't get members to switch parties, then support them in their election. This is not as much political suicide, as it is a leap of faith. I could understand why republicans would not want to give up what they have for something new and unknown.
Yet, 3 republicans will make that leap if things become dire...... speaking of which.... How's the world doing in our political absence?
No concessions offered by Republicans can be trusted. It's the whole reason we're here: because the Republicans insisted that they renege on the agreements when the budget resolution passed.
No agreements.
If the Republicans want to vote for Hakeem, then they can. Otherwise: fuck off
I don't think Democrats have much to win by throwing Republicans a lifeline here. On the other hand, Democrats do have a whole lot to win by letting Republicans continue to show the world that they can't govern. Let them melt to the ground.
Isn't a lack of actual governing the Republicans goal? Sure they want to pass a bunch of hate legislation, but they're also always happy to grind the government to a halt.
This a republican mess. It's not up to Democrats to clean it up.
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..."
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.
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.
I agree. Let the Republicans twist in the wind till they are begging and pleading for salvation. And don't "ask" for concessions make demand.
People will vote for the extremist candidate regardless of what the current house Republicans do to keep our government functioning. They either grow a backbone and do their job or they keep looking like incompetent fools, which we know they are anyways.
This all assumes the Republicans want a functioning government. They don't. They are quite happy to be gridlocked while the country burns.
Cash upfront. Republicans don't keep their agreements.
getting their support for a consensus, relatively moderate GOP speaker.
Theres no moderate republican in the house.
Well, they still ask them for voting for a Republican speaker. Why should they? Just to cover up Republican incompetence?
They could, but they're gonna join the rest of us in simply grabbing the popcorn and watching the show.
How many Republicans voted for Nancy Pelosi?
Naaaah… let them destroy themselves.