this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2023
89 points (95.9% liked)

politics

19089 readers
4587 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
 

House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) will again run for Speaker, after narrowly losing the nomination to Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) just days ago.

His challenger will be Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.), who filed to run Friday.

all 44 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 95 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Was just looking this guy up:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_Scott_(politician)

He's clearly Conservative on social issues. Most Lemmings here won't like him. But among his "political stances" listed on Wikipedia are:

  • Condemned the Jan 6 violence
  • Attended Biden's inauguration

Which shows how far gone we really are if "Condemned insurrection against the US Congress" and "Acknowledged the result of a lawful election" are now Political Stances.

[–] [email protected] 45 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The bar has been lowered to the ground

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 year ago (4 children)

The bar is in that collapsed mine in Chile. You need special mining equipment to get lower than that, but God Almighty I swear some of them have their mining hats on, pickaxes in hand.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Pretty sure it's somewhere in the Mariana Trench. Send James Cameron...

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

No, send the other OceanGate submarine. Only the best for House Republicans!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

So that's what those guys in the submarine were looking for......

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Pickaxes?

Buddy, they've got industrial earth movers, excavators, and lots of dynamite.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

The bar has been disassembled and turned into fleshlights

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

start diggin

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

It's probably time to call in James Cameron to help raise it again

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Holy shit. He's not an active traitor and he wants the basics of our government to work. That's the best we're going to get out of the Republicans.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Well we won’t, as the Qanuts won’t support him. So, a vanity run, really.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I don't know that I'd go that far when characterizing his record.

Yes, he ultimately ended up certifying the election, but he also signed the Texas v Pennsylvania amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to help throw out millions of votes (despite the suit lacking any sort of standing, and being "constitutionally, legally[,] and factually wrong about Georgia" in the words of Georgia's AG, which rings pretty true when you read the brief). When he did finally vote to certify, the GOP letter he signed very clearly implies things would have gone differently if he had been allowed to vote for the slate of obvious fraudsters that were stopped before they made it to Congress. There was a long line of fundamental safeguards that prevented the illegal toppling of the government, every one of which was stressed to its breaking point (mostly with Austin Scott's help), and any of which could have tipped the scales, but Scott wasn't exactly on the side pushing for Democracy. That said, you're right. At least he did better than Jordan, I guess?

For the record, Scott's other political stances are:

  • Life begins at conception so abortion at any stage for any reason is murder
  • Pro death penalty
  • Anti gun control
  • Anti same-sex marriage, let alone the raft of other LGBT issues

So... several decades and a few million voters removed from where the actual American population stands, and farther to the right than even mainstream fiscal conservatives, but that's par for the course these days.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Condemned the Jan 6 violence Attended Biden’s inauguration

The Right wouldn't support him for being such a traitor to their Confederate cause.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

He also supported Texas’ attempt to sue Pennsylvania over the 2021 election like a dumb dumb. He’s only marginally less human garbage than jungle gym but I guess that’s where we’re at.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

So he’s not a traitor, it seems. That’s a significant step above the rest of the republican filth.

[–] [email protected] 58 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 37 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

There's gotta be 5 Republicans willing to retire to get this done

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

At this point the best we can hope for is someone least likely to cause a government shutdown.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As dhork points out, he also acknowledged the Insurrection and the results of the election.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This might be the best you’ll do when the choice must be made from a menagerie of disgusting traitor filth.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

This might be the best choice

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.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 year ago (5 children)

The Roman Senate under Caligula was less weird -- and one of the members was actually a horse.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago (3 children)

We have one. She’s from Georgia.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago

That's an insult to horses.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

She's not a horse! Jeezus people.

She's a horse's ass.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago

– and one of the members was actually a horse.

Still more qualified than a Republican.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

I'll support Secretariat for Speaker.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Glitterhoof was her name, as I recall.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago

Well, it could be worse.

The guy takes the usual GOP positions on most issues but at least doesn't seem to have drank the MAGA kool-aid in the process. Of all the people they've talked about, this guy by far is the least shitty so far. I'm not saying he's "good" by any stretch of the imagination, but if I had a gun to my head I'd take him over any of the other ones who threw their hat in the ring.

I'm actually kinda hoping he gets it because (a) he's better than Jordan, (b) nobody else wants the job, and (c) any other option the GOP were to put forth would likely be significantly worse.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Jordan doesn't have the votes to win the floor vote. He's DOA. What needs to happen is someone from the moderate wing to make a power-sharing deal with the Dems. It's the only way they get the house moving again.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

I've been saying that since forever but the problem is, as Republicans, they aren't really interested in getting the House moving, ever. If there were a small cadre of RINOs who were willing to go to the Dems and offer to really work with them to pass bipartisan bills and push through the backlogged daily business like military appointments, they could probably get most of the Dems to agree to elect their candidate, because Dems do want government to succeed. But such a cadre doesn't exist, just the old hardliners and the MAGA deplorables. So the Dems stick with Hakeem Jeffries, because they have nothing to gain for themselves or the country by making it easier for the GOP.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

It is always a clown show with the republicans

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Scalise bowed out late Thursday when it became apparent he would not garner the 217 votes needed to earn the gavel. Internal division and opposition led to his withdrawal, coming just a day after he won the party’s nomination.

Such a fetid clownwreck.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

"Clownwreck" needs to become apart of how we talk about politics from now on. That's a fantastic word.