this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2024
146 points (96.8% liked)

politics

19625 readers
4915 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 87 points 1 year ago (2 children)

McCarthy cut a deal with Biden and then reneged on it.

Now Johnson might renege on the deal he just made with Schumer.

So why would anyone ever think a Republican Speaker can be trusted in a negotiation?

[–] [email protected] 52 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's a very good question for Schumer and the White House and every other moderate Dems that keeps trying to find bipartisan compromises with the Republican party like the last six or so years didn't happen

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

It's paid off sometimes in the Senate, like with the bipartisan infrastructure bill. That was passed in the Democrat-controlled House and then negotiated in the Senate. The problem is the current Republican-controlled House, where extreme right wingers hold much greater sway.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago

It honestly feels like Charlie Brown, Lucy, and that fucking football.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 year ago

I hope the advisors to Biden's campaign grow a spine and whenever they bring up border funding they respond: "the greater threat to America are domestic born right-wing extremist terrorists who tried to overthrow democracy no less. Shouldn't we focus on the Elephant on the room?"

Because I'm not worried about people fleeing crime and poverty and who study after study shows have a net-positive impact on the economy. I'm far more concerned about the extremist party and terrorists already here.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I know these guys are fairly shameless but how can they not be embarrassed to back out on deals they've agreed to. Getting kicked out of the position would be preferable to me than having to renege on something I spent a lot of time working on with other people.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

You’re obviously not a Patriot™ who Loves This Country So Much™ !

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The hard liners are in deep red districts and maintain their position by making noise on twitter, not passing legislation. If they are loud and mad, they will get elected in their districts either way.

The other point is that its actually better for these alt right assholes to be in the minority party, as they can drop the pretense of governing and just rage.

So you have conflict between standard conservative shitbirds who want bad laws, "moderate" conservatives that can and will lose elections in purple districts, and MAGA assholes that want to start shit and make noise and give no shits about passing laws.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

“You’re doing your job! Halt at once!"

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah suddenly it makes sense why they want to eject him, he was willing to play the role he was hired for.

Go figure.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

They want a shutdown because they think it will hurt Biden (which might be true)