this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2024
327 points (97.7% liked)

politics

19243 readers
2399 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

House Speaker Mike Johnson faces growing Republican dissent over his handling of government funding, potentially jeopardizing his reelection as speaker on January 3.

Allies are urging Donald Trump to reaffirm his support for Johnson to avoid a prolonged leadership fight, which could delay certification of Trump’s 2024 election victory on January 6.

Johnson’s bipartisan spending bill, criticized by Trump, narrowly averted a government shutdown but failed to include Trump’s core debt-limit demands.

Some Republicans warn that a speakerless House would disrupt critical legislative processes, including election certification.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 2 points 15 hours ago

It's a Kabuki show to give them an excuse to reject the election results and do something even worse.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 45 points 1 day ago
[–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 35 points 1 day ago (1 children)

When you ignore the whole fucking up democracy and the potential for far reaching effects.

Not able to elect your Speaker from your own party to certify your party’s incoming President is comedy gold.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago

It's a power struggle within the party that signifies a split between the business wing and the purely ideological wing.

You don't see this on the Dem side of the aisle because there's no split. The party is dominated by the business wing of the party and votes in lockstep for the benefit of its financial interests.

Republicans used to be like this, too. But the miserable economic conditions of red states combined with the more flagrant fascist propaganda in alt-right media has produced a core of Congresspeople who are more invested in white nationalist theory than simply profiting off their constituents.

Neither of these situations is particularly good. No matter who wins, we lose.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 10 points 1 day ago

Democrats seriously need to start naming viable speaker candidates from outside of the House.

Former Navy Captain and Astronaut Scott Kelly, brother of Senator Mark Kelly, would make an excellent choice for Speaker. Line up the Democrats behind a true American hero, just to compare them to the quarter-wit that the GOP puts up against them.

[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

So they've sabotaged their own January 6th now.

That is delightful.

[–] demizerone@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

Oh I will chuckle if numb nuts can't get certified bcz the Republicans are rekt.

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 day ago

Fuck em! Let em fight!

I want the Republican party split so they never win again!

Let every Republican in congress keel over, it'll be a Christmas miracle.

[–] eran_morad@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago
[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 198 points 2 days ago (5 children)

I just cannot believe that this country is going to be run by the worst / stupidest people and all because a lot of stupid people think Biden sets the prices of groceries...

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 28 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I just can't believe that January 6th 2021 ended up meaning absolutely nothing. Zero! Unreal.

[–] Klear@lemmy.world 3 points 14 hours ago

We'll be lucky if it ends up meaning absolutely zero...

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

J6 proved you can go as far as outright insurrection against the federal government and (if you're white nationalists) a wing of the government will protect you.

It means quite a bit. If Trump takes office and starts signing pardons for all these guys, it means radicalizing a huge swath of the public. Go ahead and do some crimes. Do some terrorism. Kill some cops if you have to. Trump and his friends will have your back.

[–] CitizenKong@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Which is precisely what Hitler did.

[–] rational_lib@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

It does have precedent though. That's how Reagan won in a landslide. Very similar circumstances - inflation, small military disaster, uninspiring president. Of course Reagan wasn't as depraved and dumb as Trump so he won by a lot more.

However inflation definitely has a history of short circuiting voters' brains. Maybe it has something to do with how the media doesn't really understand it and does a terrible job explaining it to people. I'd guess at most 5% of voters know that there are multiple inflation measures - some of which were already rising during Trump's term - and that the typically-reported number is over the last 12 months, not right now (meaning the "record low inflation" at the end of Trump's term included the whole start of the pandemic when there was deflation). Republicans are great at filling an information vacuum with their narrative, so they said it was Biden's fault and people fell for that easy explanation.

[–] GraniteM@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Here's a big part of the problem right here:

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Yup. Normal Americans are disenfranchised, while flyover country is given more influence. Combine that with dark money being allowed to outright bribe politicians and our democracy is pretty much a joke.

[–] Randelung@lemmy.world 22 points 2 days ago

Thank you, President Camacho.

[–] zaphodb2002@sh.itjust.works 52 points 2 days ago (7 children)

I keep telling people, it's not the darkest timeline we ended up in, but the dumbest one. Reality is always much dumber than you'd expect.

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 18 points 2 days ago

There's still plenty of time for it to be both.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 117 points 2 days ago

It would be less anger inducing if these idiots didn't fail upwards because others just aren't willing to hold them accountable for anything at all.

[–] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 99 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

They could just choose Musk, Speaker of House does not have to be a member of the house.

So they could just not certify the election and they have (acting) President Musk! 🤡

Edit: Supreme court then rules an "Acting President" doesn't actually need to be a natural born citizen, since he's not technically in office. And also add "This ruling shall only apply to Elon Musk."

[–] satanmat@lemmy.world 48 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Yeah this is the kind of bs that terrifies me.

So. 20 Jan; Biden is no longer president. It would pass to the Speaker to be acting President. — and yeah I could see a few yahoos thinking that would be awesome. Ffs

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

It legally couldn't pass to Musk, it would pass down to Patty Murray, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate.

"Patricia Lynn Murray is an American politician and president pro tempore of the United States Senate since 2023 and the senior United States Senator from Washington since 1993. A member of the Democratic Party, Murray served in the Washington State Senate from 1989 to 1993. She was Washington's first female U.S. senator and is the first woman in American history to hold the position of president pro tempore. Murray is also the youngest senator to occupy the office of president pro tempore in more than five decades. As president pro tempore, Murray is third in the line of succession to the U.S. presidency."

So yeah... They won't, but if they botched everything spectacularly, it would fall to a Democrat.

Edit: note it says she is the youngest in 50 years... She's 74 years old!

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 23 points 2 days ago

Lol don't worry, trump just joked about how Elon can't be president because he's an immigrant

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Please tell me you're not a writer for this coming season of Orange Turd in the White House.

Because I couldn't take the stress from the last season.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago (5 children)

I'm sorry about that we did decide to slow things down a little this season. Elon should become Speaker in the 2027 Congress and then Trump and Vance are double impeached for corporate treason. We expect Elon's state of emergency to last about a decade before Texas votes to be annexed by Russia.

-Sincerely, Outside Dev Team

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] codexarcanum@lemmy.dbzer0.com 75 points 2 days ago (2 children)

which could delay certification of Trump’s 2024 election victory on January 6.

The MAGA movement, newly emboldened by Trump's election victory, storms the capital again to overthrow the Trump administration and install a more pro-Trump regime.

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

If the certification of Trump's election is delayed past January 20th, what happens? Would his accession to power be delayed? Could he use this delay to justify postponing the next election?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 31 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The GOP wants the election certification to become a murky uncertain process. Trump won the electoral college and will be the next president - that isn't in doubt.

However, if they make confirmation a confused process then in the next election they can subvert the process and steal it.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 6 points 1 day ago

More like they created a legal theory that if you're not certified on Jan 6, then there's no process to handle the transition and so it's all up in the air

Then, they assumed every president would use this "loophole" if only they could

Everything is projection with them

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 31 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It would be hilarious if the Dems flipped 1 or 2 Republicans and took the majority leader spot for half a second.

Trump would have a full on temper tantrum.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 2 points 1 day ago

Start naming MoH recipients, astronauts, and other non-partisan "American Hero" candidates outside the house. There is no requirement that the Speaker be a congressperson.

[–] Breve@pawb.social 27 points 2 days ago (1 children)

This feels like such a microcosm of the Republican party: everyone gets elected on a wide array of misinformation, conspiracy, and empty populist rhetoric, but then fight over leadership because no one person can unify the diverse party they cobbled together to win the popular vote.

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 2 days ago

The Republicans have been so focused on grabbing power for themselves that they can't even figure out who should have power when it has to be centralized.

[–] rickdg@lemmy.world 29 points 2 days ago (2 children)

These guise don’t even know how to win.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 15 points 2 days ago (3 children)

This is also why Project 2025 will only be half implemented. Too many people working at cross purposes while trying to change an unfathomably complex system. They aren't united in purpose; they only look that way on the surface.

Mind you, the bits that do get rammed through will be terrible enough.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] 0p3r470r@lemm.ee 25 points 2 days ago (8 children)

So if they fail to elect a speaker and can’t certify before the 20th, in theory Chuck Grassely as president pro tempore of the senate, would assume office at least until such time that the votes would be certified.

That’s assuming they keep with tradition of electing the most senior member of the party in power to the position. In all likelyhood if this were even a remote possibility they’d put some trump loyalist in the position until trump was sworn in. Grassley may be a loyalist, I’m not entirely sure. And of course this is assuming the senate has their shit together. If they don’t, I think the current Secretary of State gets it.

[–] horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 19 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If you expect any of them to hold to tradition you'll be disappointed

[–] frezik@midwest.social 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)

They'll hold to traditional when it suits them. There's no particular reason why they would turn against Chuck.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] mercphilby@discuss.online 23 points 2 days ago

“Maybe if we wait long enough, someone will kill him and we can try again”

[–] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 19 points 2 days ago
load more comments
view more: next ›