210
You mean like the last bill that you idiots rejected? Jesus fuck I weep for my country.
Seems deliberate
They're doing Putin's bidding, because the orange shit-eating moron holding their chain does Putin's bidding.
Of course it's deliberate
They need something to bitch about during this upcoming election cycle
They don't care about the border. "The border" is a dog whistle for racism. If they cared, they wouldn't have voted against the most recent bill. They would have spent actual money on illegal crossings. They would have earmarked funds for better holding facilities. The list goes on.
Illegal crossings really aren't a huge issue. Most illegal immigrants enter legally and just don't leave.
Yea, bigger problem is how fucked our ports of entry are at the moment. Not enough space or staff to process everything that crosses.
If this really is an invasion like the GOP wants to claim, let's move some of that national "defense" budget into more ICE agents and more lawyers/judges in our immigration courts to process people. Let's weed out these supposed invaders. (Psssst I'm willing to bet a lot of money that there won't be any)
What a fucking wanker.
Problem is that the Speaker has a ton of power to set the legislative agenda in the House.
The other problem is that he’s a fucking wanker; meaning he’s producing a new generation of fucking wankers.
I thought he installed spyware on his and his son's computers so that they WOULDN'T be wankers
Or so he could have an audience for his wanking.
that just means they're... horny wankers.
I agree. It’s already a stretch to call our system a representative democracy, but it’s so much more egregious when you consider the unilateral power congressional leadership wields.
This is true in a sense, but also a bit misleading. The Speaker is essentially acting in the name of a House majority, and they can be removed by that majority at any time; it just provides them a degree of separation from accountability. If the Speaker is doing something that a majority of the House doesn't want, they can always remove him or use tools like discharge petitions.
That said, there are very complicated power dynamics at play there, and you're right that leadership does have too much power. But it does need to be reminded that this is only done with the consent of the majority.
"We will only do this if you give us what we want and then we won't do it."
I do believe he was sent to us by God...
As a test, to see how long we'll put up with bullshit before dragging our politicians into the streets and defend our freedom.
And we're failing.
If anything, he's an excellent example of Epicurus' paradox. No omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent god would ever allow creatures like him to wield such immense power.
Who's "we"? Because a lot of these assholes are doing exactly what their voters want.
This lazy "politicians" line has always been a way to reduce the complexity of the issue and ignore the simple fact a good deal of our country are morons and assholes that want all this.
You're up Hakeem. Discharge Petition.
Only does anything with a two thirds majority. He's not going to get that many Republicans to agree that the sun rises in the east, let alone go against their own petty tyrant leader.
Actually there are Republixans working for a Discharge Petition and it only requires a majority of House members to sign on to the petition, which means at least a handful of Republicans would have to sign on to give it teeth.
The House doesn't have filibuster rules like the Senate; nothing in the House requires two-thirds.
Discharge petitions do.
In the U.S. House, successful discharge petitions are rare, as the signatures of an absolute majority of House members are required.[2]
...
An early form of the discharge petition was introduced into U.S. House rules in 1910 as part of a series of measures intended to check the power of the disliked Speaker Joseph Gurney Cannon (R–Illinois). The modern version, however, was adopted in 1931 by the 71st House. In 1935, the rules were changed so the number of signatures required to force a vote went from one-third of the chamber (145 votes) to an absolute majority (218 votes).[3][4]
To quote your quotes:
as the signatures of an absolute majority of House members are required
to an absolute majority (218 votes)
An absolute majority is one half, not two-thirds.
Must have gotten wrong information then, my apologies.
this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2024
210 points (99.5% liked)
politics
18888 readers
3666 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS