844
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Salamendacious@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

In my opinion there's no chance of that happening. The next speaker will definitely be a republican.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago

I'm just saying, it's an easy solution. Only takes a few Republican votes.

[-] dragontamer@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

McCarthy was kicked out for working with Democrats to prevent the government shutdown.

You're grossly underestimating the RINO / propaganda that causes Republicans to knife each other in the back and demand loyalty.

[-] Astrealix@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago

Surely their long term best interests is to kick the MAGA caucus out of the party, but I guess we're just driving full steam into fascism instesd

[-] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago

I think this gets things backwards. MAGA is the party as far as I can see. Trump has dominant support in the primaries. So who is kicking out whom? Even the non-freedom caucus members have to be MAGA-lite.

[-] Astrealix@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

I mean, yes, but the leadership is still nominally under control of the old guard. Then again, if Jan 6 didn't stop them, nothing probably will.

[-] dragontamer@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

MAGA is the greatest base of voters. The neocons have been defeated so what do you want to do about it? And the religious right have gone full MAGA as well. Libertarians are also Maga-like (anti-Ukraine at least) so I'm not entirely sure who these Republicans are supposed to be impressing in their party by working with a Democrat.

[-] Endorkend@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

Only having MAGA voters won't win them elections in swing states.

[-] dragontamer@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

But losing the MAGA vote means losing the election to a Democrat.

Like seriously, if a Republican reaches across the aisle, do you really think that would impress Democrats and increase the congressperson's vote count? Lets say someone won their district like 55%. Losing 10% of the MAGA Republican vote is more deadly than the... I dunno... 3% at best that you'd gain from independents who are happy you're not an asshole. And the Democrats weren't voting for you anyway so its all irrelevant.

[-] newthrowaway20@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It is pretty cool though to see more Republicans stand up to Jim Jordan though, especially when that news came out about the threatening text messages some Republican Rep's wives got about their spouses vote. I would love to see more Republicans break off and pick somebody else other than Jordan. He is the absolute fucking worst and he's a maga Republican 100%. I mean if you're looking for somebody who looks strong to Republicans, Jim Jordan is not the choice. He looks like a whiny, sniveling bitch.

But sadly, I absolutely expect them all to fall in line behind Jordan after several pointless rounds of votes. Because they're all cowards.

Link for reference https://news.yahoo.com/gop-rep-reveals-threatening-texts-073112564.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAGVbOGFfhk10n5vCNUBjtymaq49vhJXDRGI7BpMXwBieZZCv_UGtnoS4Aj2QvdDZy5XUXs56FNZqh0kZeCiT9sLABrK9LwZtndkFyi0CaA_yPMTTvknuxxxkqQ3Vv4z6k3-d65qCWz4gYLPULwr7L5KtoSY_2btSgSVJQlHkp4bo

[-] someguy3@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

The image you gave doesn't load for me.

[-] Salamendacious@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

That's analogous to a conservative commentor saying, "an easy solution would be a few Democrats voting for Jordan." You and I know that's about as likely as Hillary stumping for Trump though.

[-] kirklennon@kbin.social 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That’s analogous to a conservative commentor saying, “an easy solution would be a few Democrats voting for Jordan.”

I'm pretty sure that was exactly the point. There have been endless articles asking if Democrats will step in to help Republicans out of the mess they created by voting for a marginally less extreme Republican. This person was flipping that nonsense around and asking why a handful of Republicans can't just vote for someone who actually wants to govern.

[-] Salamendacious@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Two reasons:

(1) Republicans are knee deep in infighting right now. Working with Democrats is bad enough but voting for one would definitely bring a primary challenger.

(2) Republicans have the majority in the house. Fair or not, it's theirs and in my opinion it just isn't realistic to expect them to give the gavel and the speakers bully pulpit (to borrow the expression) to a Democrat especially at the beginning of a presidential election cycle.

I haven't looked at these 20 Biden district Republicans in a lot of depth, only superficially, but I don't see them switching party alliances and in my opinion that's the only way they'd vote for Jefferies.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Well, she kind of did do that, though.

What if he switched parties long enough to be elected and switched back? That's allowed per their playbook. Right?

[-] OpenStars@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

Only when it works for their own side...

No /s to be clear.

[-] flipht@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago

There's no chance of them crossing the aisle to elect a Democrat, yes.

But there's also no chance of them siphoning off Democratic votes if they're unwilling to give anything up, and can't be trusted even if they offer something juicy.

So there's about as much chance that they'll elect Jeffries as there is that they'll elect one of their own.

[-] fleabomber@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

There are Republicans where they were able to win their seat but Biden won the general. They might be feeling purple.

[-] Salamendacious@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Purple? Definitely but feeling Blue? I don't think so. I think it's increasingly likely that we could see a republican & Blue dog supported speaker but in my opinion it'll be a republican with some minority party rights. I can't see Jefferies getting the gavel this time around. Hopefully 2024 gives it to him.

[-] fleabomber@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

I agree with you but I'll maintain my hopium.

[-] Salamendacious@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I'm maintaining with you.

Hopium 2024

[-] fleabomber@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Well, Christler it is.

this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
844 points (98.5% liked)

politics

19097 readers
1947 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