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
To save anyone time, Scott opposes any abortion, women's rights, LGBTQ+ anything of the sort, any gun control, and voted against the violence against women act.
He does support aid to Ukraine, so there is one, and only one, tic in the "Pros" column.
You're not going to find a hell of a lot of "pros" in the House GOP as a whole. I'll settle for whoever has the least cons. And while this guy may be a discriminatory pig, at the very least he's not a MAGA-loving discriminatory pig. I know that's not exactly a ringing endorsement, but from what we've seen from the GOP lately, any step up is noteworthy.
There's not going to be a "good" GOP candidate. We're just hoping for "least shitty". And someone who hasn't drank the Trump Kool Aid is at least a step up from McCarthy.
Perhaps I’m missing something but why would you have to settle for any GOP candidate at this point? I mean unless you support the party itself why settle for the best of the worst at all when they don’t have a chance of getting elected with the Q cult refusing to support him?
Because both halves of the party would let the world burn before they voted for a Democrat for speaker. They may not have the first clue who they want, but they can all agree that it won't be a Democrat. It's going to be a Republican, one way or the other. The best we can hope for is "least shitty option", And right now, Austin "I'm only partially bigoted" Scott is the least shitty option that's been put forth.
There are 212 Democrat house members and 217 votes are needed to elect a speaker. Getting 5 moderate Republicans to vote with Democrats seems just as plausible to me as getting the Republicans to agree right now.
There's gotta be 5 Republicans willing to retire to get this done
At this point the best we can hope for is someone least likely to cause a government shutdown.
As dhork points out, he also acknowledged the Insurrection and the results of the election.
Good points, I missed that when looking him up. Terrible person that at least occupies the same reality. Sometimes I still can't believe this is where we are.
This might be the best you’ll do when the choice must be made from a menagerie of disgusting traitor filth.
There are lots of choices that could be made. Off the top of my head, there's the choice to form a consensus government of the middle half so that the essential functions of government are taken care of, like paying for services they've already signed into law, approving military leadership appointments for the hundreds of vacancies in our armed forces, and ensuring that pregnant women and disabled veterans on food stamps don't starve when the "Freedom Caucus" tries to intentionally shut down the government (again) even though the GOP already agreed to spending levels. Because remember, the Senate and White House are both controlled by Democrats, so the only way they can sign something into law is with a consensus involving the other side, and there's actual work to be done.
Your premise that a divided GOP is required to rely on themselves alone is something they did to themselves by choice over and over again.