politics
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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. 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.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
I am eager to see how all of this plays out.
We effectively have three parties now. There's the Democrats, the Republicans, and the MAGA extremists. The problem is that the MAGA extremists are simultaneously a much smaller group than either of the two major parties while also being juuuuuust large enough to make sure that neither one of the other two parties actually have a controlling majority.
Somewhat ironically, our system actually was designed to handle this. The entire system was designed so everybody involved would negotiate, compromise, and elect one speaker that everybody can at least agree with. Theoretically, we should be able to handle this without issue. The problem is that our system was barely able to handle a two-party system where both sides dig in their heels, double down, and view any concession at all as a "loss" rather than compromise and negotiate, because at least one side could use its majority to push something through one way or another.
But now we effectively have a three party system. Our system was not designed to handle a situation where three parties refuse to negotiate or compromise over virtually anything, but none have enough of a majority to push anything through. Especially when one of the three sides has openly stated their intent to just watch the whole thing burn.
One of three things is going to have to happen.
The MAGA wing eventually backs down. IMO, doing this would effectively kill whatever influence they have even in their own party as backing down would make this entire ordeal a bigger waste of time than it already is. This would probably lead to the return of Kevin McCarthy as speaker with MTG's hand crammed right up his ass, but only this time even more emboldened as he would no longer have to worry about the deals he made to get the speaker's gavel in the first place.
Moderate Republicans are going to have to work with Democrats to get Democrat support for a moderate Republican speaker. However, doing so is guaranteed to come with a whole new list of heavy concessions that would be all but politically suicidal for a Republican to accept. This would also make it nigh-impossible to govern as the Speaker would have the impossible task of balancing the wants of his own party with whatever deal he'd be forced to make with Democrats in order to get the position. (This idea would also be untenable to Democrats, as they'd have no power to enforce whatever agreement they would make once the new speaker is installed, and there would be nothing stopping a new speaker from just telling Democrats where they can shove their agreement.)
Moderate Republicans double-down on their refusal to work with Democrats and instead begrudgingly accept a MAGA-endorsed candidate on MAGA terms just so someone gets the gavel. This would effectively put us right back where we started, with either Kevin McCarthy as speaker or someone worse than Kevin McCarthy, and just like he was, they'd have the Sword of MAGA swinging over their heads forcing him to do their bidding whether he wants to or not. This would significantly embolden the MAGA party, as they would be able to say "You will do what we say or we will oust you just like we did McCarthy". People like MTG would become exponentially more insufferable than they already are with that kind of power in their hands.
Get the popcorn ready. This is gonna be one hell of a ride.
Both sides didn’t dig their heels in and refuse to compromise. One side compromised plenty to the annoyance of their voters (dems giving concessions to republicans)
The other side never compromised, then said “fuck you”, claimed dems are at fault, stormed the capitol and acted like those “maga extremists” were the normal ones.
This isn’t a both sides thing when one side is fucking committing insurrection while shutting down the gov, that’s not on democrats.
I didn't say Democrats were wrong for refusing to compromise in this situation. If I were a member of the House, I'd sit back and watch them eat themselves too.
Both sides are refusing to compromise. Just for completely different reasons. Democrats are refusing to compromise because the GOP policies are untenable, they repeatedly go back on their word, and it's not their responsibility to save the GOP from themselves (again). Republicans are refusing to compromise because they have the collective mentality of a 7 year old, their own (now former) speaker just went on record yesterday saying that they know they're supposed to compromise but just don't want to because they're the majority party and fuck you that's why.
My statement about neither side being willing to compromise wasn't a "both sides" attack. It was merely an acknowledgement of the current situation. The reasons why they refuse to compromise are what separates the two sides.
Thank you. It's critically important to recognize that each party does do similar things sometimes, but it's also crucial to recognize the difference in motivation behind those similar actions, and to acknowledge that the motivation is sometimes just as important as the action that results from the motivation.
It's just a fundamentally flawed system since it's always easier to campaign AGAINST something instead of FOR something since the moment you make a constructive offer you're making yourself attachable while being destructive works without being open for attacks of any kind
Normally this can be resolved by there being too many parties and too many different viewpoints to oppose all of them without being crazy - but with just two parties it gets too easy to see every of those two as a single entity as and just oppose whatever they are doing
Theoretically, six moderate republicans could vote for a Democratic speaker.
If they can secure their families in undisclosed locations and get extra security detail.
I would be nominated for speaker before a Republican votes for any Democrat speaker. Never mind the almost guaranteed threats of violence you mentioned, doing so would have been political suicide even in saner times. No congressman from that side who wants to remain in Congress and continue breathing is ever going to do that in today's political environment.
I'd love to see it, but it's never, ever, ever going to happen.
That's been said about a lot of things that have happened in the last 7 years.
Valid point.
You are more likely to get 60 (or even 160!) Democratic votes for a moderate Republican than you are six Republican votes for a moderate Democrat.
I keep reading that Democrats aren't obligated to help Republicans fix their Speaker issue, which is undeniably true, so why do so many people think that Republicans are going to hand the Speakership to their political rivals?
I mean in theory 8 moderate Democrats could vote for a Republican Speaker. Why do we think one of those is going to happen before another?
In the end all Gaetz & Co did here was make sure any legislation that comes out of the House until the next election cycle is FAR more liberal and bi-partisan than anything that would have happened under McCarthy.
The thought is you’re more likely to find 8 republicans willing to stay sane, instead of 8 democrats to sell their soul to this political death cult theater.
I mean right now no one in their right mind would want to saddle up with the magats shutting down the gov. That’s not why they were elected and it’s a good way to not get re-elected.
Sooo… 8 dems go maga? Or 8 republicans plead for normalcy… I agree both seem unlikely but you’d have to be a fool to take this as standard “both sides” gridlock.
Just like I reject the notion that all Democrats are pursuing some extreme left wing agenda I also reject the idea that all Republicans are members of the GQP Death Cult. Plenty of moderates exist among House Republicans and working with them should be fine.
At the risk of starting a brawl I'd posit that over 200 Democrats likely did that yesterday. I don't think most people realize just how tilted the vote that removed McCarthy actually was. All of the House Republicans with the exception of just 8 voted to retain McCarthy. It's a shame that McCarthy wasn't a stronger Speaker and instead of working with House Democrats in a true bi-partisan fashion he instead chose to try and find an impossible middle ground but the fact remains that McCarthy wouldn't have been removed if Dems didn't like up behind Gaetz and Co to get it done.
Oh we are well past any kind of standard or normal "both sides" argument. I strongly doubt that the GoP is going to be able to bust the Freedom Caucus any time before the next election cycle which means that one party or the other is going to be forced to bend in the next 45 days. You could be correct that Congress finds a way forward with a Dem Speaker but however it happens I hope the adults are able to shut this shit storm down before it fucks up everything.
Because "moderate Republicans" are supposed to have more in common with Democrats than fascists.
Funny that they don't anymore.
We need something akin to a "vote of no confidence" when Congress refuses to work.
You didn't pass a budget? Great, we get to elect new people who will.
There needs to be some sort of consequences for not governing.
The problem is that we have career politicians in the first place. Power needs to change hands much more frequently. The way things are now, if snap elections were called when congress failed to pass the budget, nearly every district would go "it's not MY rep that's the problem" and send the same people back again.
I'm okay with career politicians actually. It's a job. And like most jobs people get better at it over time. A skilled politician can do good things for their constituents.
The problem we're seeing right now isn't even the "old guard". It's the new kids in the house.
I mean, there sort of are consequences. It’s just that it takes two years.
Except in practice no one ever seems to vote out congress(wo) men for being inneffective. They just keep voting in the incumbent as long as they're in the right party
FYI, congressmember is a good catch-all term for gender inclusion.
Thanks, that's much more elagant than my ham-fisted approach lol
That's true... I'm thinking something more immediate for basic national needs. Things where inaction can be devastating, like not having a budget.
There were consequences...but they involved the 2nd amendment. The militarization of local police in the 90s made sure that will never again be possible.
Our system was designed to handle this situation. The remedy is in the press, outside the offices of intransigent members of Congress, in campaigns for Democratic Congresspeople, and at the ballot box.
Free speech is protected in the US specifically to air grievances with the government. You have to get off your ass to exercise it though. It's not going to happen without you engaging in the electoral process.
Yours is one of those comments where I wish we were still on Reddit so I could give you Gold or Platinum.
Honestly, I'm glad that's gone. Rewards incentivized ragebait posts and karma farming. Without it, people here have a lot fewer hot-takes and much more good-faith commentary.