this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2023
500 points (97.5% liked)

politics

19072 readers
4566 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Conference fails to approve procedural motion to take up defense spending bill as government shutdown looms

The House Republican speaker, Kevin McCarthy, was dealt his second humiliating defeat of the week on Thursday, when his conference again failed to approve a procedural motion as members continued to clash over government spending levels with just days left to avert a federal shutdown.

With no clear path forward in Republicans’ negotiations, the House concluded its work on Thursday without any stated plan to reconvene on Friday.

“Discussions related to [fiscal year 2024] appropriations are ongoing,” Congressman Tom Emmer, the House Republican whip, said in a statement. “Members are advised that ample notice will be given ahead of any potential votes tomorrow or this weekend.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Not if the Dems agree to vote to keep him. He could play this like an intelligent human being and still keep his job, so long as he's willing to weather a bit of right-wing media blowback for the next few months. He just has to strike a bipartisan deal, like he's supposed to.

[–] knotthatone@lemmy.one 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not if the Dems agree to vote to keep him

That seems a tall order given his long history of biting the Dem's hands every time they reach out. This is a problem of his party's own making and stems from not honoring their earlier agreements around the debt ceiling.

Besides, they can't agree to something he hasn't (and won't) ask for.

[–] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

That seems a tall order given his long history of biting the Dem’s hands every time they reach out. This is a problem of his party’s own making and stems from not honoring their earlier agreements around the debt ceiling.

I don't disagree. I'm just saying Dems could offer to vote to keep him in his position in exchange for a bipartisan deal. That doesn't mean they capitulate completely, just that they offer him something he wants (his job) in exchange for something they want.

Besides, they can’t agree to something he hasn’t (and won’t) ask for.

I didn't say they've asked or are responsible for agreeing to anything, please follow the whole thread. I was responding to someone who said he'd lose his job if he worked with Dems on a bipartisan deal. He wouldn't if they threw him the bone of a vote to keep him if his caucus moves to vacate him as Speaker. I'm not commenting on the likelihood of anything like this happening, simply that it's possible.

[–] tankplanker@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Working with the Dems will make his next Primary difficult, he hasn't got that long before that comes around again. This is what he, and a lot of the more moderate republicans are really scared of, being cut off from the grift by their own party.

[–] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

You're right, but it's certainly a calculation that will change as pressure mounts. Is the political cost of working on a bipartisan compromise bigger than the cost of a shutdown he'll be blamed for? Right now, maybe not. Over time? It might very well get there. It's a lose-lose proposition at the moment, he just has to decide which loss he's more afraid of.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not if the Dems agree to vote to keep him.

Why the hell should they??

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

To have a functioning government. There's 0 chance there will be a democratic speaker. There's a pretty good chance nothing works, and normal people don't get paid for weeks or months if bipartisanship is out.