this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2023
537 points (97.7% liked)

politics

19104 readers
4014 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
 

The congresswoman quipped that in attempting to avert a shutdown Republicans were “run[ning] around the House like a Roomba, until they found a door that House Democrats opened”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] OpenStars@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Maybe, but she could also just happen to be right here, on this point. What sticks in the back of my mind is that McCarthy could have ended this at any point by simply doing what he previously gave his word that he would do, which is also what the majority of both Republicans and Democrats and thus all Americans want.

Edit: what I meant by the above is that he was going to pass an actual budget - and wasn't that already agreed upon months ago, more or less? Instead, he merely passed a continuing resolution, which is not the same thing, plus he also left out support for Ukraine. Yes he avoided a shutdown, it would be nice for her to acknowledge that, but he could have done so at any time and far more besides?

The reason he cited as to why he did not is bc he would be removed if he did, except now that seems likely to happen anyway?

He gave his word to everyone, which he went back on, and in a manner that also goes back in his word in the opposite direction too, caving on issues that he previously said were impossible to give in on. He's lying to the other side, he's lying to his own side, he allows himself to come to power with an insane restriction, then does nothing to change that, then seems shocked - shocked I tell you! - when they actually want to use that option.

I have to stop short of actually judging any of that bc I don't know enough, but it does seem an absolute mess. And at this point I could see Dems wishing to see someone else in charge of Repubs, if that would actually make things easier to move forward somehow.