this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2023
165 points (94.1% liked)

politics

18672 readers
2720 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
 

The chamber has been without a leader for weeks because of GOP infighting.

top 43 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 46 points 10 months ago (1 children)

At the rate it's going over there, the UN might have to send in peacekeepers fairly soon. And no, I didn't put this in the wrong topic.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Maybe call in hostage negotiators?

[–] [email protected] 19 points 10 months ago

Sorry, we don't negotiate with terrorists.

[–] [email protected] 43 points 10 months ago (1 children)

at this rate they're gonna run out of old white dudes

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago

You vastly underestimate the GOP’s ability to produce old white dudes

[–] [email protected] 27 points 10 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 28 points 10 months ago

9... So far

[–] [email protected] 22 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Republicans shitting all over the house so no work can get done.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

This is the real reason. It saves them from having to reuse other bullshit excuses to prevent any work from getting done.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 10 months ago

"See, Big Government, is the problem, they can't even do their job right, much less run country" - Republican Representatives

[–] [email protected] 26 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Is 9 too old for Matt Gaetz?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago

Pretty sure he'd take three 3-year-olds and call it square.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 10 months ago (2 children)

How many of them voted to overturn the 2020 election?

[–] [email protected] 16 points 10 months ago

I believe 7 of the 9 did. There are 2 Republicans running who didn't try to overturn the 2020 election. Of course, the Freedom Caucus will oppose those candidates, keeping them from getting enough votes.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago

One of the reports I heard about on the news this morning is that the MAGA wing demands that any speaker nominee be an election denier, which is one of the many reasons that Jordan refused to answer the question about whether he still believes the election was stolen.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's probably easiest to just label them all Corrupt Old White Guy 1 through 9.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Well they have to have somebody labeled Token Black Guy up there…

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago

Yeah I saw that.

One of four black House Republicans.

One of four, in a body of 221 house GOP reps.

That's 1.8%. An amazing statistic even compared to house GOP women at 16%.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Getting a real I Am Spartacus vibe from myself right now.

I'm thinking of running for Speaker.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago

I don't know anything about you, but I'm certain you're at least as qualified as these clowns.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago

There are no good options here. 7 of the 9 voted to not certify the 2020 election results.

Tom Emmer, the MN rep who is emerging as a front-runner of the two that did vote to certify, is just as bad but more politically savvy, having repeatedly cast doubt in the election results and refused to acknowledge Biden even won after the election. He's a partisan willing to do and say anything for right-wing causes, but unlike the pure chaos members, can make calculated long-term decisions about political effects.

The other person who voted to certify is Austin Scott, who the Internet seems to know nothing about. Maybe he's the best option here? The "not enough information to confirm verifiably terrible" option?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

A Game of Speakers?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

This week, on So You Think You Can Speak

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I think we should have them settle this with trial by combat.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

I'd watch that on payperview

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If only this were a world where a few Republicans might defect to Jeffries just to stick it to the far right end of the party that started all this. That would cause some real drama. Wouldn't be hard to stick the blame on the magats and spin it into a message of ending the madness and ineptitude we are watching unfold.

But alas, this is not that world. Republicans would have to actually care about something other than owning the libs and dismantling the government for it to be that world.

Although, still, bipartisan support of a candidate is the only reasonable way I see out of this that doesn't just fall apart again when Gaetz can't get his way. It's too bad the Republicans have painted themselves into a corner where ceding any ground to the even the most conservative Democrats is a complete non-starter.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

That would really create some drama

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

The rule should be if they don't get a person voted in then the democrats get to pick a republican to serve. The person chosen must serve.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I think it should be the person with the highest number of votes, Democrat or Republican.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Do you want spoiler candidates? Because that's how you get spoiler candidates

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Yep, I'm one of those that likes to watch the world burn.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

This is the exact way Trump won the 2016 primary.

Stuff the choices out so much that there’s 7 shit candidates and 2 almost-passable candidates. Then hope one of your 7 can outlast both of the other 2.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

This could be better than the current situation but I could imagine a lot of side effects to that system. Maybe if there was a lower threshold that had to be met so we couldn't have situations where someone with 20 votes wins.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

I can get behind this. A lot of effort invested into tweaking the rules of sortsball lately to keep things fresh when these are the changes we need.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

I think I recognize two of them.