this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2023
95 points (93.6% liked)

politics

19100 readers
4238 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.
  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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Highlights: Their third speaker pick in three weeks lasted barely four hours. Now, with their desperation on full display, Republicans are trying again.

The House GOP is convening Tuesday night for its fourth internal huddle of the day as it hears from yet another unwieldy field of candidates to lead its broken ranks. No one has demonstrated the ability to do what the three previous failed speaker hopefuls couldn’t: Unite enough Republicans to land 217 votes on the floor.

Two members of tonight’s five-man field have already run and lost. That includes Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.), the second highest vote-getter earlier Tuesday.

There’s little hope for relief among the bitterly divided GOP, where the fruitless search for a speaker has become so miserable that some members even floated a return to former Speaker Kevin McCarthy — with Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) as an “assistant speaker.” (The idea has not been taken seriously inside the conference.)

[M]any Republicans fear they’ve reached the point where no candidate can get 217 votes on the floor.

top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I wonder how long it will take the Republicans to understand that they are so totally broken as a party that the only way out of this mess is actually put government over party and vote for a Democratic speaker. Luckily, this only takes a handful of Republicans coming to their senses.

[–] Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago

Honestly I think this is what they want. Is the end game to starve the beast, regulatory capture, and every other "let's break the government to show the government doesn't work".

If people think any politician involved directly in this debacle right now is really concerned about how they look, they aren't. Their voters have already swallowed the pill, lined up and pledged undying allegiance.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think a Democrat speaker would be a horrible idea for democrats. It sounds cool, but it would be bad politically most likely. They could put things up for a vote that they want, but it doesn't give them majority so they can't actually pass anything. It just gives Republicans something to blame (in a very stupid way, but a way that'd work for the politically ill-informed) instead of them getting the blame for all of it.

The only "good" option I think is a republican that is picked by the democrats and concessions saying they'll bring anything to a vote with a certain amount of bipartisan support. Maybe also concessions to vote a certain way for upcoming things, like the budget.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, we now know that didn't happen, either.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah, sadly. They managed to select a Christo-fascist. Good stuff...

[–] gastationsushi@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

At this point I think it's more likely for centrists dems to bail out the GOP for zero concessions than any republican to come to their senses.

GOP is a cult, you can't just up and leave a cult.

[–] uphillbothways@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Will the GOP have to expel the renegade caucus to function as a party? Tune in next week to find out, as the Dems take center stage in our new format: Plurality Rules!

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Do they actually have a mechanism for that? And given how much influence that group has on their party and their size in it's electorate, who would be expelling who?

[–] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

There is a mechanism to expel any member of Congress, just needs a 2/3rd vote. So it would need cooperation from Democrats.

Plus the whole issue here is that there isn't a group of 217 who could govern, unless you include Democrats. Vote out the 8 Republicans who voted out McCarthy and suddenly Democrats have the majority.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

There is a mechanism to expel any member of Congress, just needs a 2/3rd vote. So it would need cooperation from Democrats.

I don't think the Democrats would mind giving a helping hand in such a case.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Short answer is, “yes”, they can expell them from their party. Party leadership isn’t exactly democratic. (Or not necessarily democratic. They could operate by council appointment instead.)

Longer answer is it’s irrelevant- you need a majority of the house to elect a speaker. Expelling them from the party does nothing to change that they too have a vote.

They’d have to have a vote on the floor to impeach and expell the from congress and incidentally, they have to have a speaker to do that

[–] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Couldn't they lost their majority if they starts expelling them?

[–] figaro@lemdro.id 1 points 1 year ago

Yes, which is why it won't happen

[–] Cyberflunk@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Is it Britain that has the vote of no confidence thingy? Let's do that.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What they need is a so-called "constructive vote of no confidence" like in Germany: You cannot just vote one person out, you have to vote a replacement in to remove the old one.

[–] RazorsLedge@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Das a good idea

[–] Sloogs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's a feature of a lot of parliamentary systems in general. It's honestly nice to have the shake up when things are at a standstill in parliament, even if the sometimes constant elections are annoying at times. It also helps to have more than just two viable political parties, also.

I would love to see a Dem somehow step forward, and for just enough republicans vote to get them in as speaker.

[–] Draegur@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

oh my fucking god please please please please PLEASE stay absolutely fucked to death forever.

[–] asteriskeverything@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This just in! Republicans don't know what to do and can't agree on anything without a figurehead dictating everything. More at 11.

[–] Behole@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Dems gotta jam a MAGA hat onto Hakim Jeffries and get this shit done!

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago

I like the cut of your jib, but I think I'd much rather see some of the few moderate Republicans in Biden districts eat some crow and vote for Hakim without their beloved political theatre.