this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2023
612 points (95.8% liked)

politics

19072 readers
3988 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
 

House Republicans haven’t been terribly successful at many things this year. They struggled to keep the government open and to keep the United States from defaulting on its debt. They’ve even struggled at times on basic votes to keep the chamber functioning. But they have been very good at one thing: regicide.

On Friday, Republicans dethroned Jim Jordan as their designated Speaker, making him the third party leader to be ousted this month. First, there was Kevin McCarthy, who required 15 different ballots to even be elected Speaker and was removed from office by a right-wing rebellion at the beginning of October. Then, after a majority of Republicans voted to make McCarthy’s No. 2, Steve Scalise, his successor, a number of Republicans announced that they, too, would torpedo his candidacy and back Jordan instead. Finally, once Republicans finally turned to Jordan as their candidate, the largest rebellion yet blocked him from becoming Speaker. After losing three successive votes on the floor, the firebrand lost an internal vote to keep his position as Speaker designate on Friday.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 20 points 1 year ago (3 children)

AOC in particular has blunted the more prickly parts of her platform and conceded quite a bit when it comes to votes and stances on policy.

That's called "leadership". Politics is the art of the possible. It's not a feel good love fest where everyone hugs and agrees with you.

AOC and others have been very good at moving Biden to the left. This presidency has been one of the most productive for the left wing of the Democratic Party. They passed a single bill that cut prescription drug prices, funded climate change legislation, and funded the IRS to crack down on rich tax cheats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_Reduction_Act

What more could they add? Everyone gets a puppy and can kick Clarence Thomas in the groin one time?

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

What more could they add?

Packing the court and ejecting the coup participants would be nice. Not to mention patching the holes the GOP poked in the ACA. Closing more tax loopholes for the 1%.

Beyond that? Medicare for all, UBI, an actual privacy law that does anything at all, some sort of legislation on police brutality and racial profiling, something to fix gerrymandering, a proposal to eliminate the Electoral College and First-Past-The-Post, a bill to end Citizens United...the FCC is actually moving forward on Net Neutrality now, so that's cool. But there's plenty more they could do.

and can kick Clarence Thomas in the groin one time?

Well hang on a second. I think we should hear the cons of this proposal.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I said "What more could they add?"

None of that would pass.

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

Ah, I took your ad absurdum suggestions at the end the wrong way. I assumed you meant that they were so ridiculous because all of the reasonable things had been exhausted, not that they were the most bipartisan options that would be rejected.

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

I'd also like parental leave and 20 ish days min vacation, Alex.

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

Your country is so fucked

[–] CADmonkey@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

can kick Clarence Thomas in the groin one time?

They would have my vote.

[–] Wiz@midwest.social 4 points 1 year ago

You start off the negotiations with far left position of two kicks to his groin. One kick is the compromise position.

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

I'm aware that you can't caucus and get anything done as a frothing at the mouth socialist in today's climate, but the compromise approach is a slippery slope

Unfortunately for her she is the left's poster child, so gets it from both sides. I'm still largely a fan and agree with her a lot more than I don't, but some of her recent decisions rubbed me the wrong way

[–] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Compromise is literally the way liberal democracy is designed to work. This is supported by a massive volume of literature going back as far as Locke and Hume and Rousseau. I have no idea how you could even type such a statement in good faith.

It just reeks of nihilism. How can you seriously read the previous 200 years of European history and come to the conclusion that nothing has changed? That people's lives aren't better? That they aren't happier, or living longer or more free?

I mean Christ, I want to abolish capitalism just as much as the next guy, but I'm not going to sit here and pretend that the current system is irredeemably evil when it's made a comparative fuck ton of progress towards post-scarcity socialism compared to any other period of human history.

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

The current system is irredeemably evil though, isn't it? It is destroying us in an ever tightening death march of greed instead of saving the planet. It is starving and imprisoning, as a means to provide slave labor, instead of using surplus labor to actually feed, clothe, and shelter us all.

[–] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Right, humans are historically shitty. The point is that we have mitigated a significant amount of historic evil in the past 200 years, and have a framework for continued progress.

Utopia is a journey, not a destination. But we have objectively never witnessed a greater rate of progress in recorded human history.

[–] Cogency@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

But progress is not due to capitalism. (that would be a post hoc fallacy) And global warming is an issue that is coming to a head this decade and the next few to come. This isn't some distant future utopian problem. This is pragmatic, and essential to continued human survival on this planet.