this post was submitted on 16 May 2024
208 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19148 readers
1981 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 House was in session at the Capitol on Thursday, but thanks to the latest procession of Republicans reporting for duty in front of a Manhattan criminal courthouse to show support for former President Donald J. Trump at his trial, the party risked ceding its control of the floor,” the New York Times reports.

“Almost a dozen House Republicans showed up at the courthouse on Thursday…”

“Republicans control the House by such a slim margin, 217-213, that just two defections can sink legislation if all members are present and voting — and just a few absences can erase their majority altogether. The show of support for Mr. Trump from such a large group of members meant that for much of Thursday, the G.O.P. may have handed the floor over to Democrats, leaving themselves exposed on the House floor.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Good call. I fell for the trap I was upset about, it's literally just their job, but they won't do it the same way they didn't want to confirm judges near the end of Barrys second term.

[–] No_Change_Just_Money@feddit.de 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

This was not about being scared and more of a social contract

They would not select judges on the end of a presidents turn, based on the trust that the other party wouldn't either

As soon as one party stops holding to this unwritten agreement (as Republicans did under Trump), there is little to no incentive for the other party to continue abiding to it

[–] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Im sorry but "I made a tacit verbal agreement about choices that deeply shape the law of the entire country with an untrustworthy group of people who went on to break it when everyone was warning they would break it" isn't better. In fact that changes the narrative from 'Dems being too stuck to principles to make the right choice' to 'Dems are simply not intelligent enough to make the right choice', and either way they got played.