I'd like to see the flight expense claims from these House Repubs and whether taxpayers are funding their trips to kiss the ring in Manhattan.
this post was submitted on 16 May 2024
210 points (98.6% liked)
politics
18651 readers
3875 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
Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with these people? You go from being the "law and order" party to being the party of one of the biggest con men of the past century.
So now you know they were never actually a "law and order" party, just as they've never actually been a "fiscal responsibility" or "liberties and freedoms" party. These are just words they say to their base when it is convenient.
Certainly never the "family values" party
Law and order is a euphemism for free minority labor. Build the laws to keep jails full since those lameo historical killjoys made outright slavery illegal.
"Law and order" has always been a dog whistle for "oppressing minorities". They've just dropped the pretense, is all.
Conservatives have always been the "law and order" party.
They want to use the law to order you to accept their monarchy and their religion.
They're either "scared and stupid" or an amoral asshole aking advantage of the dumb folks.
They were always the fascist party.
👨🚀🔫👨🚀
God I hate that we treat politics like sports teams now.
We?
Only one side does this and literally covers everything they own with Trumps crap.
The referees are on Trump's side.
Trump hired a bunch of them. Sports is (barely) more fair.
Alito had an upside-down American flag (Stop the Steal) Jan 17, 2021 on display at his house.
load more comments
(15 replies)
People should take you seriously when Democrats start wearing diapers to support Biden.
You have that reversed.
I have nothing reversed.
The poster I replied to was both-sidesing. I pointed out that when Biden supporters wear diapers in support of Biden (the same way Trump supporters wear diapers) then he'd have a point.
I follow. I missed your point entirely. Sorry about that!
It's all good bro.
Judging by my comment score, either I didn't make my point as well as I would have liked, or I made a few Trump humpers angry.
load more comments
(1 replies)
They know the Democrats don't have the balls to try and sneak legislative actions by when they're not there. They're too focused on decorum and wanting a strong Republican party to undermine the Republicans.
"Sneak" is a loaded term. I think what you mean is "do their job like they're supposed to and vote like they usually would." It's not like they're holding a secret/special session under the Republicans noses. They're just at work when they're supposed to be and others aren't. The alternative to "sneaking" legislative action in this case is just not doing their jobs for the day because a bunch of people decided not to show up. 12 people don't show up, so they send the other 400+ home for the day? Is that the moral expectation?
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.
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
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.
"Republicans dickride Trump at his trial"
He didn't even have to pay for it this time.
Maybe they are thinking they get some hush money.
I can’t think of a better location for an asteroid to strike.
The Democratic Party should have legislation ready to go in just such a scenario.
Ok. That seems academic at best. With Mike Johnson as speaker, what would the dems be able to do to capitalize on their temporary majority? The Speaker would just refuse to hold a vote.
It looks like there is a work around for that, but it involves the Rules Committee, which is typically appointed by the Speaker. So, yeah, not possible, outside of some exceptions that I'm not sure I understand well enough to explain. Something about things that are "privileged".
What happens if Mike Johnson isn't there either?
load more comments
(5 replies)
I thought that this is why they put the FART team in place, to guard the floor. Clearly they've weakened the FART, but as we all know, you should never trust a weak FART.
Please go support the Trumpster more often. Thanks.
They should oust Mike Johnson, and make Hakeem Jefferies the Speaker and change the rules so it requires a majority of democrats to oust him.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
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.
House Republicans had a vote scheduled for Thursday afternoon to rebuke President Biden for his decision to pause an arms shipment to Israel and compel his administration to quickly deliver weapons.
Democratic leaders in the House had advised their members to vote “no,” calling the measure “another partisan stunt by Extreme MAGA Republicans who are determined to hurt President Biden politically.”
The group that showed up in Manhattan on Thursday was composed of lawmakers who rarely shy from disrupting legislative business in the Capitol or embarrassing the party on the House floor.
The Oversight Committee postponed a meeting scheduled for Thursday morning to vote on holding Merrick B. Garland, the attorney general, in contempt of Congress, rescheduling it for 8 p.m.
With five of the panel’s members — Representatives Andy Biggs of Arizona, Michael Cloud of Texas, Mike Waltz of Florida, Ms. Boebert and Ms. Luna — in Manhattan, the G.O.P.
The original article contains 728 words, the summary contains 200 words. Saved 73%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
view more: next ›